The US Supreme Court UU. You will hear your first important case of weapons since 2010

By Andrew Chung NEW YORK, Dec 2 (Reuters) - A legal fight over a New York City firearms ordinance that could give the conservative majority of the United States Supreme Court the opportunity to expand gun rights presents itself before the nine judges on Monday in one of the most guarded cases of his current term The court is expected to hear the arguments after 10 a.m. (1500 GMT) in a legal challenge backed by the influential gun rights pressure group of the National Rifle Association to a regulation that had prevented licensed owners from taking their guns out of the confines of the most populous. United States city. It is the first important case of weapons that has been presented to the Supreme Court since 2010. The New York City regulation was amended in July to eliminate the restrictions in question in the case, but the Supreme Court chose to continue the arguments anyway. The judges have said that they will consider during the arguments the affirmation of the city that the change in regulation has made the matter debatable. Gun control advocates have expressed concern that the court, with a conservative majority of 5-4, could use the legal battle over a now loosened gun control regulation in a city to issue a ruling that extends rights of weapons 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. Three local firearms owners and the NRA subsidiary in New York State, a national pressure group closely aligned with President Donald Trump and other Republicans, argued that the regulation violated the right of the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States to maintain and bear arms. 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. 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. City officials argued that controlling guns in public acquires 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 did not prevent owners from keeping a separate gun in a second house 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 closely, with a view to tearing them down. The court ruling must be filed at the end of June. (Andrew Chung Report; 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 and is automatically generated from a syndicated feed to which we subscribe.)