The judges of the US Supreme Court. UU. Struggle to dismiss an important case of weapons

(Add quotes from judges) By Andrew Chung and Lawrence Hurley WASHINGTON, Dec. 2 (Reuters) - Judges of the United States Supreme Court faced Monday to reject a challenge backed by the powerful National Rifle Association to a New York City firearms ordinance and bypass a ruling that could lead to an expansion of arms rights. The nine judges heard arguments in the first large arms case that was filed before the high court since 2010. Three local firearms owners and the NRA subsidiary in New York State, a national pressure group for gun rights closely aligned with President Donald Trump and other Republicans, argued that the regulation violated the right to the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States to maintain and bear arms. The four liberal judges of the court indicated that they believe the case is debatable because New York has modified the law. Conservative judges Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch were very active in advocating for the court to issue a ruling. The president of the court, John Roberts, who could be a fundamental vote in the case, said little but asked if city residents who defied the law would face consequences for violations of prior regulation. The legal challenge points to a regulation that prevented licensed owners from taking their guns to other houses or shooting ranges outside the confines of the most populous city in the US. UU. The regulation was modified in July to allow such transportation. What remains of this case? asked liberal judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The petitioners obtained all the relief they sought. Echoing a discussion of the challengers, Gorsuch disagreed, saying that the new rule does not specifically protect gun owners if they stop along the way. Despite the amendment of the measure, the Supreme Court chose to continue with the arguments. The city had argued that the amendment to the regulation made the matter moot and asked the judges not to listen to the arguments in the case. Outside the white marble courthouse, hundreds of arms control supporters held a demonstration and carried posters that included some readings, why are weapons easier to buy than a college education? Gun laws save lives and the 2nd written Amendment before assault weapons were invented. They described armed violence as a public health crisis. Maryland resident Christina Young said the laws should reflect modern society, including mass shootings. I have an 11 year old daughter. I never had to worry about guns at my school as a child, Young said. Gun control advocates have expressed concern that the court, with a conservative majority of 5-4, may use a legal battle over a now amended regulation unique to a city to issue a ruling that extends gun rights throughout the country. Such a decision could jeopardize a variety of firearms restrictions approved in recent years by state and local governments across the country, including expanded background checks and confiscations of weapons from people that a court has deemed dangerous, According to these defenders. The dispute centers on the licensing of firearms premises in New York City that allowed holders to transport their firearms only to a handful of firing ranges within the city and to hunting areas in other parts of the state. during designated hunting seasons. The plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in 2013 after authorities told them they could not participate in a shooting competition in New Jersey or take their weapons to a house in another place in the state. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, based in Manhattan, ruled last year that the regulation promoted the city's interest in protecting public safety and did not violate the Second Amendment. PROLIFERED GUN CONTROL LAWS Gun control is a controversial issue in the United States, which has experienced numerous mass shootings. Since 2013, 45 states and the District of Columbia have adopted more than 300 gun control laws, according to the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. Republican opposition in Congress has been instrumental in frustrating the approval of new federal laws. New York City officials have argued that controlling guns in public takes on a particular urgency in the most densely populated urban center in the United States, where the potential for violence, accidents or theft increases. The regulation dates back to 2001, when New York police hardened the rules for transporting firearms because officers had observed that license holders were traveling improperly with loaded firearms or with their firearms away from any authorized range. The city argued that the rule did not impede training, since there are many fields to practice within the city, and individuals could rent firearms in farther competitions. The rule also prevented owners from keeping a separate gun in a second home outside the city. The Supreme Court had avoided taking an important case of firearms since 2010, when it extended to state and local regulations a 2008 ruling that recognized for the first time that the Second Amendment protects a person's right to keep a gun at home for fend. Challengers have said that the history and tradition of the Second Amendment makes it clear that the law extends beyond the home. They are also asking the Supreme Court to demand that lower courts review stringers more strictly, with a view to tearing them down. The court ruling must be filed at the end of June. (Report by Andrew Chung and Lawrence Hurley; Will Dunham Edition) This story has not been edited by The Times of India and is automatically generated from a syndicated feed to which we subscribe. (This story has not been edited by timesofindia.com and is automatically generated from a syndicated feed to which we subscribe.)

comments