by The oral arguments in NYSRPA v Bruen will start this morning at 10am Eastern. If you can set aside 70 minutes of your morning, I think it will be well worth it. Remember this is the first major Second Amendment case that the SCOTUS has taken since McDonald v. Chicago in 2010.
I suggest having a nice relaxing place to listen as undoubtedly the attorneys for the State of New York as well as the Biden DOJ will make arguments that we peons don’t have any right to carry outside the home.
Here is what my view will be like.
If you go to www.supremecourt.gov and scroll down to the bottom of the landing page, you will see a button marked “live” that allows you to follow along in real time as the audio is livestreamed. You can also follow along at C-Span here.
Paul Clement, former US Solicitor General, will argue the case for the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association. He will have 35 minutes. Opposing him will be Barbara Underwood, the Solicitor General of NY, who will have 20 minutes to defend New York’s good cause requirement. Another 15 minutes is set aside for Brian Fletcher, Principal Deputy Solicitor General, who will argue in favor of keeping New York’s requirement. A few votes here, a few votes there, and it would the US would be arguing in favor of the NYSRPA.
In the past, I would not have added this link to TTAG for post-argument analysis. However, Robert Farago is long gone and they do have an all-star cast. It will feature Joseph Greenlee of the Firearms Policy Coalition, David Kopel of the Independence Institute, Eugene Volokh of UCLA, and Cody Wisniewski of the Mountain States Legal Foundation’s Center to Keep and Bear Arms.
It is important to bear in mind that we probably won’t see a decision until just before this October Term closes in late June 2022. Also, a win won’t change things immediately in places like New Jersey, Hawaii, and the like as it will take more litigation. However, a win would provide the basis for challenging those states’ restrictive carry laws.
The Supreme Court always “decides” in private and usually opts to keep the ideological peace among members. They seem terrified of “court packing” by Congress, so don’t expect anything relevant to the gun-owning population. They refused to hear a case brought by one state against another for “election fraud”, so why would you expect anything for a case that affects mere individuals? The Germen Courts played along with the Nazis in the 1930s. Don’t expect anything beyond a “waffle” here. SCOTUS might loose its exemption from the “Death Jab”.