by The oral argument in the NY State Rifle and Pistol Association versus City of New York is the top of the calendar today for the Supreme Court. This marks the first Second Amendment case to reach this stage since 2010’s McDonald v. Chicago.
The oral arguments are being recorded. The Supreme Court also will make transcripts available. Both will be available on Friday after the Court’s regular conference.
For a more contemporaneous report on the proceedings without the mainstream media slant, Tom Gresham of Gun Talk was given media credentials to cover the case and will be posting on Twitter. His Twitter feed is found here. Alternatively, his Twitter handle is @guntalk. He also will be doing a Facebook livestream before and after the session. You can find it here.
All I can say regarding the case is to keep your fingers crossed. The US government has taken the position that the case is not moot. Paul Clement who will be arguing on behalf of the NYSRPA agrees in his response.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2019/18-280_m64o.pdf transcript of the oral arguments.
The good stuff starts at page 50ish. The questions of the justices to the plaintiffs are all about “Why should this case be heard.” I did not spot anything about the merits of the case.
But on page 50ish or so, Justice Alito starts asking questions, and Gorsuch. Here is a short quote of the exchange:
JUSTICE ALITO: So you think the Second Amendment permits the imposition of a restriction that has no public safety benefit?
MR. DEARING: I think you have to look, first, to consider whether the — the type of restriction — how the restriction accords with the history under the Second Amendment before we answer that question. And so I — I think — I think the right place to start, and — and for our purposes, maybe starting with shooting ranges is the best, first key point is this must be viewed as an adjunct to the premises license. This is not just a general statute or generally applicable statute. It’s an adjunct to the premises license. It’s —
JUSTICE ALITO: Well, if it’s viewed in that way, could the city — would it be consistent with the Second Amendment for the city to prohibit any trip by a person holding a premises license to a firing range?
MR. DEARING: I think that would be doubtful. And the — and the reason the city went beyond what state law says about a premises license and — and authorized transport to shooting ranges in the city was because the city recognized that — that training is –does intersect with and is important to effective use of the handgun in the home.
JUSTICE ALITO: So you are conceding — I take it “doubtful” means that it would be unconstitutional. You can tell me if you — you –you don’t know the answer to that question. But, if it — if that’s what it means, you’re conceding that the Second Amendment protects the possession of a firearm outside the home under at least some circumstances?
Allocate an hour or two and go read. There are some real zingers in here.
I suspect that the case won’t be decided on the merits or even on the merits of mootness but on Robert’s political games to “maintain the credibility of the Court”. I guess he thinks that CJ Taney’s decision in Dred Scott was a success.
Sigh… This one isn’t going to be an easy one.