US Supreme Court OT 2019

This opening argument document is a fascinating and revealing look at the case: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2021/20-843_i4dk.pdf

The petitioner (2A folks) make the case that the NYS law creates a privilege where the Constitution defines a right. By making permits subject to judgement of a local authority, without specific standard, then you have denied the free exercise of a guaranteed right. The Justices spent a great deal of time exploring where/what occasions it might be acceptable to limit the right, questioning the petitioner how to characterize those, seemingly looking for ideas to publish in their decision and orders. For example can you carry in a football stadium? The subway? The forest? Times Square on NYE? Leading us to believe this may be a way to make shall-issue carry a thing but also allow legislatures to limit it in other ways.

The respondent (NYS) spent most of their opening argument harping on "history and tradition" i.e. saying we have had many laws that restrict concealed carry for many years. Thus the Second has to be construed in light of these and laws su h as NY are OK to leave alone. They did not have any defense against questions related to limiting right such as the First Amendment or the Sixth Amendment (right to confront your accuser in Court) against a person's need to exercise those rights, and kept beating the drum of history and tradition saying that basically we have had these laws all along so it must be consistent with 2A. In my mind very shaky ground that seems like a pretty weak argument.

You can see clearly the lines are drawn. Alito, Kavanaugh, Barrett, Thomas leaning towards striking down and Sotamayer, Brewer, Kagan upholding based on their questioning. Gorsuch and Roberts were harder to read they may be crucial to how this goes.

Interesting side note the respondents kept trying to weave in arguments that the case should be remanded back to lower Court for decision or remanded for hearing to determine more data and statistics. Both stink of desperation and dancing around the fact they don't have good arguments to stand on.

Recommend everyone read it and think about eh issue it will give you a good understanding of what we are up against and importantly the function of the Constitution in the Court.
 
Back
Top Bottom