Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.8
Site Design by Sekimori

« Alec Baldwin shooting | Main | Alec Baldwin shooting: a Hollywood armorer's insights »

NYSRPA oral argument

Posted by David Hardy · 3 November 2021 06:17 PM

Back in action at last, just in time to post the transcript of oral argument!

Listened to it this morning. Paul Clement, for NYSRPA, had a good but somewhat shaky opening. Then the Solicitor General spoke, VERY shaky and uncertain. Turns out she was just made SG last week, after being an acting since January, background clerking for judges but only one year of practice. Then New York's attorney spoke, reasonably well. Then Clement gave a really excellent rebuttal.

NY's defense seemed to focus on: there's a wide variation in conditions around the state, from rural counties to packed cities and their subways. The present system lets local officials decide and be flexible. A counter was -- is there any other fundamental right where we let licensing officials be arbitrary because conditions vary?

4 Comments | Leave a comment

Carl from Chicago | November 4, 2021 5:08 PM | Reply

Glad you are back up and posting Dave!

For what any musings may be worth, a couple of my thoughts from this case and the arguments:

1) When they got in the weeds about sensitive places, I was pleased Kavanaugh suggested those questions aren't really directly at issue and can be decided later. Alito mentioned security, magnetometers, etc. as a framework that could help define sensitive places. Although Clement had reservations about some of that (perhaps for good reason), I've long suspected a workable framework for defining sensitive places could be built around some limited category places that include limited access points, screening/searches, and professional armed security. A sticker on doors stating "concealed weapons prohibited" does not a sensitive nor secure place make. There must be measures to guarantee that weapons are prohibited AND that armed security (via police or whatever) is adequate. Places like that already in existence include most courthouses, federal buildings, jails, secured portions of airports, etc. Do or could college campuses fit those criteria? Not so much. Subways and mass transit? Not so much. Stadiums? Maybe. Schools? Maybe.

2)I've long suspected Roberts may be the squishiest of the current 6 justices we may reasonably expect to find and protect a general right to carrying arms. Thus, I long suspected that this decision may turn out 5-4. But my thinking now leans to 6-3. I would generally prefer a strong 5-4 (one for example authored by Thomas) to a weaker 6-3. At any rate, Roberts came out strong in 2-3 places in the arguments, by coming back to the core of the right being tied to personal defense, including (importantly) arguing that the need/probability for defense is likely more acute in populated versus unpopulated areas. Moreover, he kept going back to Heller. If you ask me, the findings in Heller have already predisposed the outcome of this current NYSRPA case. So in my own view, a faithful following of Heller would strongly seem to invalidate the discretionary licensing scheme in NY. No stretched invocation of the Statute of Northampton, of Surety, or of calls for remand can reasonably change that.

It's been a pleasure following this case! And I want to thank all those who have participated, particularly those who value our liberties that are ostensibly protected by the 2A.

Clayton Cramer | November 5, 2021 1:23 PM | Reply

"Racially integrated communities are especially prone to race riots, so we can license speech and press."

Anonymous | November 7, 2021 9:07 PM | Reply

Clement did a shitty job.....said it was ok to ban on public transit, time square...etc. Should have said no, it's not ok to ban carry there or ANYWHERE a person has a right to be. Should have stuck with jails, court rooms...then should have said, that people can carry guns INSIDE state legislatures and then gave some examples of such (some allow OC, some allow CC). Guy f**k up in multiple spots..seriously...all you hear is this guy is so great....he is a f**king joke and doesn't know what the f**k he is talking about. Do some GOD DAM research....JFC. /rant

Anonymous | November 8, 2021 10:15 AM | Reply

CLement wasn't there to advocate for ideal gun rights---he was there to try to win permits for his clients.

Leave a comment