The judges of the US Supreme Court UU. Discuss whether an important case of firearms should be ruled out

* Gun control advocates fear that the rules will extend the rights of firearms * The argument focuses on whether the change to the law makes the case debatable (Add quotes from judges, details on arguments) By Andrew Chung and Lawrence Hurley WASHINGTON, Dec. 2 (Reuters) - Consideration of the US Supreme Court. UU. An important gun rights case could result in a power failure, and the judges debated on Monday whether to reject a challenge backed by the powerful National Rifle Association to a New York City firearms ordinance. The judges heard arguments in the first major arms dispute that has been presented to them since 2010, and arms control advocates fear that the court, with its conservative majority 5-4, may issue a ruling that further extends the rights of weapons of fire throughout the country. Much of the arguments focused on whether the court should even decide the merits of the legal challenge because the city in July removed the limits imposed on licensed gun owners on where they could take their firearms that were critical to the legal challenge. . The four liberal judges expressed their support for the case statement because New York modified the measure. What remains of this case? asked liberal judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The petitioners obtained all the relief they sought. The city has thrown in the towel, added fellow justice Sonia Sotomayor. 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 Trump administration sided with the NRA-backed challengers. Only three of the five conservative judges asked questions. Two of them, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch, were vocal in pleading for the court to issue a ruling. The president of the conservative court, John Roberts, who could be a fundamental vote in the case, said little, but his questions indicated that he could potentially vote in favor of dismissing the case. The regulation had prevented licensed owners from taking their guns to other homes or shooting ranges outside the boundaries of the most populous city in the US. UU. Conservative judges focused on an argument made by plaintiffs' attorney Paul Clement that the amended regulation of the city is still inadequate. The Supreme Court chose to continue the arguments despite the fact that the city had argued that the amendment made the matter moot. The court ruling must be filed at the end of June. Hundreds of supporters of arms control demonstrated in front of the court, calling armed violence a public health crisis. Gun control is a controversial issue in the United States, which has experienced a series of mass shootings. A ruling that extends the rights of firearms owners could endanger hundreds of gun control laws passed in recent years by state and local governments, including extended background checks and confiscations of weapons from individuals who a court has considered dangerous, according to defenders of the prevention of armed violence. Republican opposition in Congress has been instrumental in frustrating the approval of new federal gun control laws. COFFEE BREAKS The dispute centers on local firearms licenses in New York City. Transportation rules had been tightened in 2001 after New York police observed gun license holders who were traveling inappropriately with loaded firearms or with their firearms away from any authorized range. The challengers argue that the amended regulation is still poor because it requires that all firearms transport be continuous and uninterrupted, which could put owners at legal risk if they take a coffee break along the way. The city's lawyer, Richard Dearing, said the owners would not face consequences for coffee breaks or other reasonably necessary stops. That didn't placate Gorsuch, who wondered what he would rate. Is the coffee needed reasonable? Gorsuch asked. Alito wondered what would happen if the owner of a gun stops to visit his mother for a couple of hours. Roberts asked if city residents who defied the law would face negative consequences for violations of prior regulation. Dearing said they would not. If that answer resolves Roberts' concerns, it could be a sign that he would join the liberals to find the case moot. The Supreme Court had not addressed 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. Conservative judges Brett Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas did not ask questions. Thomas is known as a strong defender of gun rights. Kavanaugh, as a member of a trial court, disagreed in a 2011 ruling that confirmed the ban on assault weapons and other weapons restrictions in the District of Columbia. The plaintiffs sued 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 part of 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. (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