Washington- Pair of shootings Georgia And Colorado Last month, with Congressional Democrats and President Biden, gun control was pushed back to the forefront of public debate. Call for prompt legislative action..
However, in public protests against gun control, nine members of the Supreme Court are meeting in a closed room to discuss whether to add to the next docket dispute over gun control. Federal and state levels.
In mid-April, the High Court will decide whether to hear a proceeding regarding the constitutionality of a license to carry a hidden pistol in public, or the right of a convicted serious offender to possess a gun. There is a possibility. Proponents of gun rights -and Part of the judge himself — The Supreme Court argues that it has long been late in defining the scope of the Second Amendment.
“”[T]The country is divided because the second amendment to the Constitution is alive in the vast middle of the country and the same rights are ignored near the coast. “Secretary of Justice Filing last month. “Whatever other framer was intended to enshrine the Second Amendment to our Charter of Basic Freedom and guarantee the right to” hold and bear “weapons to all” people “, so much. It was not to tolerate a country that was divided on a significant issue. “
Discussion by the judge is already scheduled Two of its private meetingsThe case from New York includes a state ban on carrying hidden pistols in public without a license. However, in order to obtain a license, the applicant must show “justification” and “a special need for self-defense that distinguishes it from the general public and those in the same profession.”
Two New Yorkers, joined by the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, challenged the ban after their application to obtain permission to carry hidden pistols in public was denied. Gun owners claim that the law is an infringement of the second amendment to the constitutional right to possess weapons, but lower courts uphold the rule.
Now, they have asked the Supreme Court to decide whether the second amendment to the Constitution would allow the government to prohibit citizens from taking hidden pistols out of the house for self-defense.
“Many Americans want legislative action to ultimately prevent gun violence, while courts appear to be moving towards making gun regulation more difficult,” Gifford said. Said Hannah Shearer, the director of the proceedings. Lawcenter told CBS News. “This is probably an important part of a conversation that hasn’t received much attention.”
Ten years have passed since the Supreme Court ruled the last groundbreaking decision in the second amendment dispute, arguing that further action is needed to address the scope of the second amendment. It’s a great help to the regrets of gun advocates.
2008, Supreme Court Ruled Article 2 of the Constitutional Amendment Protecting the right to put a gun in the house for self-defense, the court in 2010 The right to possess a weapon applies to the state.. The Supreme Court of 2019 Hear the discussion Judge in a challenge to New York City rules that limit where authorized pistol owners can transport locked and unloaded guns Throw the case Last year after the problem limit was changed.
Then the Supreme Court Spurred many challenges Many believe that the decade-long wait for the ruling may be nearing its end, but state gun restrictions in June.
Shearer said the High Court, which refused to accept the second amendment proceedings in its final term, may depend on Judge John Roberts. However, Roberts’ influence diminished as the conservative majority of the court increased to 6-3 with the appointment of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to fill the seats of the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg. It was.
“Currently, Judge Barrett is appearing in court as another credible vote in a conservative direction regarding the second amendment to the Constitution. This is because the water gate is open and the court is in the second amendment to the Constitution. It may mean starting to consider the decision more openly, “she said.
Jonathan Adler, a law professor at Case Western Reserve University, said he expects the next gun control to land in the Supreme Court as an “outlier.”
“It is unlikely that a widespread, large-scale gun decision will be made to wipe out or obscure national gun control,” he said.
Adler said that the New York City transport rules reviewed by judges in 2019 were different from other firearms regulations, as was the case in the 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller court ruling, outside the home. I predicted that even the ruling on carrying a gun could be narrow.
Proponents on both sides of gun control expect the Supreme Court to end the long drought and decide on an amended Article 2 proceeding, which is a hidden carry license rule like the New York proceedings. A serious offender who was convicted of possessing a firearm.
The judge will discuss at a private conference next week. In the case of KenflickA Georgian man convicted of smuggling in 1987 for copyright infringement and the import of counterfeit cassette tapes.Due to his felony conviction, Flick Federal law From possessing a gun.
“”[W]The legislature has a great deal of freedom in defining crimes and classifying them as felony. We cannot freely drive people out of the protection of the Constitution, “said Flick’s lawyer. Said to the Supreme Court In their petition urging judges to hear the case.
Barrett’s promotion to the Supreme Court could increase the likelihood that the judge would dispute her disarmament for serious offenses. Disputed In 2019, he appeared in the 7th US Circuit Court of Appeals for an objection related to the same law in question in Flick’s proceedings.
The case was often quoted in her confirmation hearing, convicted of one postal fraud charge, and convicted of serious charges, Ricky was barred from possessing a gun under federal and Wisconsin law.・ Canter was involved.
The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit said Canter’s objection to the constitutionality of federal law was “no merit,” but Barrett disagreed.
“Permanent disqualification of a canter from possession of a gun because there is no evidence that he belongs to a dangerous category or has an individual marker of risk violates Article 2 of the Constitutional Amendment. “She wrote.
As Parliamentary Democrats renewed requirements for stricter gun control following shootings in the Atlanta region and Boulder, the Supreme Court’s decision on whether to address the scope of the second amendment comes.Mr Biden urged lawmakers to act, but he Ready to announce Thursday’s presidential action to curb violence.
Shearer said the Supreme Court’s ruling could apply to measures approved by lawmakers and limit legislative options open to parliament as well as state legislatures.
“It’s important for lawmakers and supporters to pay attention to what the court is doing and what regulations are still possible,” she said. “So far, no one has given a convincing interpretation that would not allow the background check, which is the basic proposal of Congress. The second amendment to the Constitution states that no matter what the Supreme Court does. It must not prevent it. “
The Supreme Court will consider whether to participate in gun control as more stringent restrictions are required
Source link The Supreme Court will consider whether to participate in gun control as more stringent restrictions are required