« Alec Baldwin shooting | Main | Alec Baldwin shooting: a Hollywood armorer's insights »
NYSRPA oral argument
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
"Racially integrated communities are especially prone to race riots, so we can license speech and press."
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
CLement wasn't there to advocate for ideal gun rights---he was there to try to win permits for his clients.
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.