Spencer Platt / Getty Images
Questions and comments from Supreme Court justices on the use of guns in public spaces leaned toward New York law being “too restrictive,” so they may support a motion that goes the other way.
Conservative magistrates are inclined that Americans have the right to carry a firearm outside the home “to defend themselves.”, but they consider that a New York law needs a special justification to obtain such permission.
Despite their position, it cannot be entirely said that judges, especially conservatives, will decide in favor of the plaintiffs, although a decision may be made that has no impact on other states.
However, In the event of a decision in favor, the judges were not open to the carrying of weapons “anywhere”but in areas that are considered dangerous.
Attorney General Barbara Underwood defended New York law, noting that for years the rules have imposed limits on carrying guns in public, due to “public safety.”
His position was supported by Brian Fletcher, the deputy attorney general of the Department of Justice, who accompanies the position of New York by the Government of the president Joe Biden.
In some states, local congresses enact laws that allow the carrying of weapons in public, which is known as “unrestricted licenses.”
The presiding judge of the High Court, John Roberts, was incisive in his questions to Attorney Underwood, especially in matters related to legitimate defense and what the Constitution establishes.
“The idea that you need a license to exercise the right (to bear arms), I think is unusual in the context of the Bill of Rights,” said Roberts.
The oral argument lasted two hours, but there would be a decision until the following year, perhaps in the summer.
Any Supreme Court determination could change the regulatory framework of the Second AmendmentBut the judges raised concerns about allowing people with concealed weapons to enter areas deemed sensitive, such as stadiums, crowded public events or places where alcohol is served.
However, the judge Brett Kavanaugh asked a question more inclined to support the motion defending the National Rifle Association (NRA) on the New York requirement.
“Why is it not important enough to say that I live in a violent area and want to be able to defend myself?” He asked.
In 2008, the Supreme Court ruled for the first time that the Second Amendment gave a person the right to have a gun at home for personal defense, but several states, such as New York, restrict carrying abroad.
The difference with that decision is that now the concept of “carrying arms” is being discussed and decided And unless the judges limit their decision, it could have an impact on several other states.
The case reached the Supreme Court, after the NRA and two men whose applications for licenses to carry them concealed without restrictions were denied, but their lawyer Paul Clement said that the Second Amendment enshrines the right to bear arms in self-defense, as it happens. in 43 states.
Clement’s argument opened up several questions, including transportation to universities or public transportation. He considered that it should be analyzed “case by case”.
Eddie is an Australian news reporter with over 9 years in the industry and has published on Forbes and tech crunch.