Democrats suffer disastrous night in Virginia and a tight race in New Jersey – live

Lower courts rejected the argument by the plaintiffs that the law violates the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. The lawsuit seeks an unrestricted right to carry concealed handguns in public.

The Supreme Court’s 6-3 conservative majority is considered sympathetic to an expansive view of Second Amendment rights.
New York’s law requires applicants to state a specific reason for needing a gun for self-defense.

“Why isn’t it good enough to say ‘I live in a violent area and I want to defend myself?’” conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh asked.
Conservative Justice Samuel Alito wondered why only “celebrities, state judges and retired police officers” should be able to carry concealed guns as opposed to “ordinary, law-abiding” citizens.

Conservative Chief Justice John Roberts raised doubts about New York’s practice of giving unrestricted licenses more freely in more rural areas compared to densely populated centers like Manhattan given that the Second Amendment has been found to protect the right to self-defense.

“How many muggings take place in the forest?” Roberts asked New York Solicitor General Barbara Underwood, who was defending the law.

Underwood highlighted the need to regulate concealed guns to promote public safety, noting that the prospect of proliferating firearms in the New York City subway system “terrifies” a lot of people.

Conservative Justice Samuel Alito pushed back on her argument, contenting that there are people with illegal guns already on the subway and other public areas. “But ordinary hard-working people … they can’t be armed,” Alito said.

New York’s law requires a showing of “proper cause” for carrying concealed handguns. To carry such a weapon without restrictions, applicants must convince a state firearms licensing officer of an actual, rather than speculative, need for self-defense.

A ruling striking down the New York law would lead to new legal questions in the future including how local governments can regulate firearms in sensitive places such as government buildings, public transit, sports stadiums, schools, universities, sites of protests and drinking establishments.

Paul Clement, the lawyer for the challengers, said prohibitions at government buildings and schools probably would pass muster but others would have to be examined on a case-by-case basis.

Some justices voiced concern about whether a ruling against New York might restrict states and localities from imposing prohibitions at sensitive locations. Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett wondered about New York City’s massive annual celebration in Times Square on New Year’s Eve.

The court’s three liberals signaled concern about expanding gun rights.

source: theguardian.com