It wasn’t the best news for gun rights supporters yesterday, but we can see why this case should be argued before the Supreme Court. New York City’s now-repealed anti-gun law which prohibited licensed gun owners from transporting their firearms outside of the city limits is before the Court, a significant development since this is the first Second Amendment case, they’ve taken up in nearly a decade. Still, early reports suggest that there isn’t a majority that will hand down a favorable ruling for gun right supporters. For starters, the city repealed the law prior to oral arguments, a telling sign that lawyers for New York City knew the law would have been gashed by the Court. They got caught peddling a shoddy anti-gun law that did nothing to enhance public safety. That’s something they admitted during arguments.
Stephen Gutowski, a firearms reporter for The Washington Free Beacon, combed through the transcripts where he also found city lawyers admitting that the Second Amendment applies outside one’s home as well. This is the core of the case. It’s the final front in this legal battle: do we have a constitutional right to carry firearms in public. Of course, I agree. Everyone who is a supporter of the Second Amendment and the Constitution agrees. The Supreme Court has yet to give a definitive answer to that question.
I've read all of the oral arguments in today's SCOTUS gun case and while there is a lot of talk about whether the case is moot there's also a lot of discussion of the merits. Here NYC's lawyer admits the now-defunct travel regulation had no safety effect. https://t.co/tyZ0o2DBxk pic.twitter.com/WPYCB4tUi3— Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) December 3, 2019
Here the city's lawyer says they believe Second Amendment protections do extend outside the home, at least to some degree. That's the key philosophical question in this case. pic.twitter.com/KVORtM6pZ4— Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) December 3, 2019
Heller established the Second Amendment, at the very least, protects Americans' right to own certain firearms inside their own home. Gun-rights proponents have been trying to get the court to affirm the right extends beyond the home for about a decade now.— Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) December 3, 2019
There was a lot of argument over whether there were still live claims in the case specifically around whether the plaintiffs could recoup damages from the repealed regulation and whether the city would try to charge people for making stops while transporting their guns places.— Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) December 3, 2019
Several justices asked whether stopping for a cup of coffee while traveling with your legally-owned gun would leave you open to arrest under the new regulations. The city argued it wouldn't but was fairly wishy-washy when challenged on the finer points about that. pic.twitter.com/Ui7FAIle0I— Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) December 3, 2019
The city never gave a clear answer on what kind of stops while transporting firearms are legal what kind aren't. They ended up saying the courts would have to figure it out. pic.twitter.com/nG8zKWLJ70— Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) December 3, 2019
The city's argument is that the controversy over what kind of gun transportation is now legal under the new standard isn't relevant to this case because it was created by the new state law and not the city regulation that was being challenged. pic.twitter.com/wlK5ub0Ndn— Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) December 3, 2019
Unsurprisingly, the plaintiffs don't trust the word of the city's lawyers and want SCOTUS to specifically rule they can't arrest people for stopping for coffee and the like while transporting their legally-owned firearms. pic.twitter.com/TFQbXvdz0T— Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) December 3, 2019
Here's the thing about oral arguments, though: You generally shouldn't make huge assumptions about what SCOTUS will do with a case based on what the justices say or don't say. The court isn't always so predictable.— Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) December 3, 2019
This is blue state madness. It’s obvious that if you give Democrat free reign, they will pass laws, even constitutionally questionable laws, to satisfy their authoritarian tendencies. In fact, the notion that they passed a law that didn’t do anything for public safety but chipped away at law-abiding citizens’ rights just encapsulates what’s at the core of the anti-gun Left’s agenda. Granted, Gutowski also said that gauging how the Court will fall based on oral arguments isn’t accurate. We could be surprised come June when a final decision is handed down.