Media representatives have settled in front of the US Supreme Court building in Washington.
Al Drago | Reuters
The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear a major dispute over the second amendment that could determine whether the constitution protects a right to publicly carry arms.
The decision, announced in a resolution, comes after President Joe Biden faces pressure from activists to take action to limit the availability of high-powered weapons amid outcry over mass shootings.
Proponents of increased arms control measures have raised concerns that the country’s highest court, which has a 6-3 majority of Republican candidates, could expand the scope of the second amendment.
In two landmark cases, more than a decade ago, the Supreme Court ruled that the second amendment protects the right of individuals to carry a weapon indoors for self-defense. Last year, she declined to make a material decision on her first major case of the second amendment since then.
In the case where the court has agreed to hear the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association against Keith Corlett, # 20-843, on Monday, individuals and a state organization are contesting a New York law under which individuals ” Correct Reasons “must be provided in order to obtain authorization to carry a pistol in the open.
Robert Nash and Brendan Koch, the people who brought the suit, both applied for licenses to carry handguns for self-defense and were refused. A district court found that neither man had any reasonable cause for neither facing “special or unique danger” [their] Life.”
A federal appeals court upheld the lower court’s decision not to license the men.
In their appeal, written by former Attorney General Paul Clement, the men argued that New York law was under the precedents of the District of Columbia Supreme Court against Heller ruled in 2008 and McDonald v City of Chicago ruled in 2010 was unconstitutional.
“As this court made clear in both Heller and McDonald’s, the second amendment essentially guarantees the right to keep and carry weapons for self-defense,” wrote Clement. “Like the threats a need for self-defense might create, this individual and fundamental right necessarily extends beyond the four walls of one’s home.”
New York attorney general Letitia James wrote a brief letter to the judges not to admit the case that the New York law was compatible with the Heller and McDonald rulings of the Supreme Court. In McDonald’s, the court wrote that its opinion was not intended to lift certain “long-standing bans” on the use of weapons.
James wrote that New York law has existed in the same essential form since 1913 and “is backed by a centuries-old tradition of state and local measures regulating the public transport of firearms”.
She also wrote, “New York law directly promotes the overriding interests of the state to protect the public from gun violence.”
A decision is expected by summer 2022.
Read more about CNBC’s political coverage:
This is the latest news. Check for updates again.