Court to take up major gun-rights case

Symposium: The individual plaintiffs in California v. Texas suffer a greater Article III injury than did the individual plaintiffs in NFIB v. Sebelius

Latest news

By Amy Howe

at 10:50 am

Over a decade after ruling that the second amendment protects the right to have a gun indoors for self-defense, the Supreme Court on Monday agreed to decide whether the constitution also protects the right to have a gun outside the home wear. The judges’ announcement to question a New York law requiring anyone who wants to carry a gun in the state to show a good reason to do so creates the conditions for a comprehensive ruling on gun rights in the 2021 court -22 term.

The law at issue, New York Rifle & Pistol Association v Corlett, is similar to gun control measures in other states. In order to obtain an unrestricted license to carry a hidden firearm outside the home, a person must demonstrate a “right reason” – which means a special need for self-protection. Two men challenged the law after New York denied their covert broadcast requests and they were supported by a gun rights advocacy group. The US Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the law and asked the challengers to appeal to the Supreme Court.

After reviewing the case at three conferences, the judges agreed to a consideration. They instructed the parties to ask a slightly narrower question than the challengers asked them to decide, and limited the question to whether the state’s denied the individual’s requests for the promotion of a weapon outside the home for self-defense violated the second change. However, the case has the potential to be a landmark decision. It will be discussed in the fall, with a decision expected sometime next year.

The announcement came just a day ago a year after the court ruled on another challenge filed by the same gun rights group. This case concerned New York’s ban on the transportation of licensed handguns outside of the city. Since the city lifted the ban before the case reached the Supreme Court, a majority in the city’s court agreed that the challengers’ original claims were in dispute – that is, no longer a living controversy. In a concurring statement, Judge Brett Kavanaugh agreed that the case should be returned to the lower court, but also stated that he shared the dissenting concern expressed by Judge Samuel Alito that the lower courts “may not be properly applied Find”. the recent Supreme Court rulings on gun rights, District of Columbia v Heller and McDonald v City of Chicago. As a result, Kavanaugh urged the court to “resolve this issue soon, possibly in one of the several Second Amendment cases petitions filed for Certiorari” which were then pending with the judges. Some of these concerned the right to carry a pistol outside the home for self-defense.

Shortly after the decision was made, at its conference on May 1, 2020, the court distributed 10 gun law cases that they had put on hold while pending trial in New York City for consideration. The judges examined these cases at six consecutive conferences before finally declining to review all ten cases in June.

Judge Clarence Thomas disagreed with the court’s decision not to open at least one of the ten cases. In a statement, partly endorsed by Kavanaugh, Thomas argued that the Supreme Court would likely grant a review if a law required someone to be a good cause before exercising their right to freedom of expression or seeking an abortion. However, Thomas went on to say that the Supreme Court had chosen to “just look[] vice versa ”if“ there is a petition in which such a restriction of the rights of citizens according to the second constitutional amendment is called into question ”.

There is no way of knowing why the judges rejected the petitions for review last year. Commentators speculated that some Conservative judges may not have been confident that Chief Justice John Roberts would cast a fifth vote to extend gun rights. However, since then Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg has been replaced by Judge Amy Coney Barrett, whose vote as judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit suggests that she might take a broader approach to the second amendment.

This post was originally published on Howe on the Court.