Judges weigh the dismissal of the case by the New York City gun law

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court on Monday considered whether to rule out the first gun rights case it has heard in almost 10 years, a result that would be a great relief for arms control advocates. The judges heard arguments in a dispute over New York City's restrictions on the transport of licensed weapons, blocked and unloaded outside the city limits. New York has withdrawn its transportation ban, but only after the high court decided in January to hear the case. The arms defense groups expect a conservative majority fortified by two people appointed by President Donald Trump, Judges Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, to use the case to expand the historical decisions of a decade ago. But the court spent most of the time trying to determine if there is any case left by the New York branch of the National Rifle Association and three city residents. Supreme Court President John Roberts requested assurances from the city attorney that the New York police would not refuse to issue weapons licenses to people who violated the old law. Urging the judges to get rid of the case, Richard Dearing, the city's lawyer, said repeatedly that the city would not prosecute people or deny licenses based on past violations. The four liberal judges made it clear that they will probably vote for dismissal. So what is left of this case? The petitioners obtained all the relief they were looking for, ”said Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg, at the bank for the first time since a recent two-night hospital stay. Paul Clement, on behalf of the gun owners, said his clients are entitled to a federal court order, not just to the city attorney’s representations. In one example, Clement said it is unclear whether the owner of a gun heading to a shooting range could stop for coffee or a bath without breaking the law. His argument seemed to win the favor of at least two conservative judges, Samuel Alito and Gorsuch. When Dearing said that coffee and rest stops are permissible, they asked if the owner of a gun would be at risk by stopping at his mother's house. Dearing replied that he was less certain about other types of stops, but that people could challenge that restriction in a new case. Judge Clarence Thomas, who has lamented the reluctance of the court to face gun cases, did not ask questions, as is his custom. Kavanaugh also remained silent during the arguments. For years, the NRA and its allies had tried to get the court to say more about gun rights, although mass shootings may have caused judges to avoid taking on new disputes over gun limits. The lawsuit in New York began as a challenge to the city's ban on carrying a licensed gun, closed and unloaded outside the city limits, either to a shooting range or a second home. The lower courts ratified the regulation, but the decision of the Supreme Court in January to intervene in the case signaled a revived interest in gun rights. Officials, both at the city and state level, rushed to find a way to get the case out of the reach of the judges. The city not only changed its regulation to allow licensed gun owners to transport their weapons to locations outside the five boroughs of New York, but the state enacted a law prohibiting cities from imposing contested restrictions. There is no case or controversy because New York City has repealed the ordinance and the New York State Legislature has acted to ensure that it remains repealed, said Jonathan Lowy, lead attorney and vice president of the legal action project of the control group of Brady weapons But those movements failed to get the court to dismiss the case. The city maintains that what it calls its previous rule did not violate the Constitution. But that seems to be a difficult sale given the composition of the court, with Gorsuch and, in particular, Kavanaugh on the court. Kavanaugh voted at odds when his federal court of appeals confirmed the District of Columbia's ban on semi-automatic rifles. Weapons bans and gun regulations that are not old or sufficiently entrenched in the text, history and tradition are not consistent with the individual law of the Second Amendment, Kavanaugh wrote in 2011. Arms control advocates fear that the court may adopt Kavanaugh's legal justification, potentially endangering regulations on who can carry weapons in public, limits on large-capacity ammunition magazines and perhaps even restrictions on Possession of weapons by convicted criminals, including persons convicted of domestic crimes. violence. This Second Amendment approach would treat gun rights as an absolute right, frozen in history, and not subject to any restrictions such as public safety demands, said Hannah Shearer, litigation director at the Giffords Law Center to prevent armed violence Reflecting possible high stakes, more than three dozen legal supporting documents have been submitted. The Trump administration, 25 mainly Republican states and 120 members of the House of Representatives are on the side of gun owners. A dozen states led by Democrats, 139 House legislators and five Democratic Senators are among the city's sponsors. A decision is expected at the end of June. 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.)