Open/Close Menu وکیل | مشاوره رایگان | وکالت | وکیل آنلاین

It’s under me Column on the hill As for the next round of litigation over the Second Amendment. New York and other states were quick to take advantage of Justice Brett Kavanagh’s (joined by Justice John Roberts) concurrence that state officials believe there is a loophole for further gun restrictions based not on weapons but on where they can be carried. took the

Here is the column:

In The Incredibles, the villain Syndrome reveals a plan to turn everyone into a superhero. Syndrome’s motivation is hardly altruistic: he hated superheroes andWith everyone wonderful, no one will beDemocratic leaders seem to be planning their own Second Amendment Syndrome plan — to make every place a special or “sensitive” place, so that few places outside the home are protected by constitutional rights.

The recent decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen It was one of the most important Second Amendment victories in Supreme Court history. It was the latest setback for New York state, which — by passing a series of dubious state laws that served to expand individual protections under the Constitution — has been the biggest gift to gun owners since the invention of the revolver.

Right on cue, Governor of New York. Kathy Hochul (d) promised to introduce Syndrome-style legislation within an hour of the publication of the Bruen decision. To make matters worse, Hoochul went on TV and said this in a mocking tone They only provide a long list of sensitive locations.

Hochul and others rely on an agreement in Bruen by justice Brett Kavanagh, He was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts. Kavanaugh reaffirmed this language in a 2008 decision Heller v. District of Columbia that the Second Amendment was “neither a straight vest check nor a regulatory blank check.” States and the federal government can still impose some restrictions on firearms. He specifically noted that the list of “sensitive locations” referred to in the previous case was not “exhaustive.”

Kavanagh’s restrictive language was immediately seen as a license to ban guns by redefining where they may be carried.

New York Concealed Carry Improvement Act passed 43-20 and has elements ripe for a constitutional challenge. However, it was the list that was most impressive. In fact, it is hard to find a place that is not declared special or sensitive. The list seems to cover most outdoor areas, including government buildings. Any place that provides health, behavioral, or chemical dependency care or services. any place of worship or religious observance; Libraries, public playgrounds; public parks; Zoos are the site of any state-funded or licensed program. educational institutions in primary and higher education; Any vehicle used for public transportation. All public transportation including airports and bus terminals; bars and restaurants; events and places of entertainment, games and sports; polling places; Any public sidewalk or public area that is restricted for a specific event, protest or gathering. This includes simple crossing Times Square.

Montgomery County, Maryland, authorities Proposed It prevents the legal right to carry a firearm “at or within 100 yards of a place of public assembly.”

Other states like California are moving to prohibit licensed gun owners from carrying firearms on any school campus, college and university campus, government and judicial buildings, medical facilities, public transportation, public parks, playgrounds, public demonstrations, and any place where Where alcohol is sold, prohibit it.

These states believe they have an ally in Roberts. The Chief Justice has been criticized in the past for embracing rights and creating ways around them. The most obvious example of his opinion in National Federation of Independent Business vs. Sebeliusfind that individual order of Obamacare violated federalism, but then said it didn’t matter If simply called a tax (which neither party had done).

Those states are now hoping that Roberts and Kavanagh will do the same for gun rights in staunchly defending an individual’s right to bear arms, unless states simply define a wide range of places as “gun-free.” It is not the gun, but the location that causes the removal.

The problem is that Hochul and others may have been too open to playing the game.

Roberts is ultimately incremental and institutionalist. As in his exclusive consent in the abortion decision Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s HealthHe is not afraid to be left alone in search of a moderate compromise. However, he is not one to enjoy being treated as a dummy.

Simply listing more of Manhattan as a “sensitive location” again pushes the constitutional envelope. This forces the Court to again limit states’ authority to bear the burden of balancing the individual right to own guns against the need to protect these places from the exercise of that right.

In answer to this question, the Court is likely to ask how the holders of lawful gun permits have statistically created or materially increased the danger to public safety in these areas. SStudies have generally not shown a clear relationship Between restrictive gun licensing laws and significant reductions in gun violence.

When you say you’re going to play these justices, it’s wise to heed Syndrome’s other advice: “You can’t count on anyone, especially your heroes.”

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. Follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.

Write a comment:


Your email address will not be published.