Gun control and firearms safety advocates hold a protest in the U.S. Supreme Court while the court hears oral arguments at the State Rifle and Pistol v City of New York, NY, in Washington, DC on December 2, 2019.
Saul Loeb | AFP | Getty Images
The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on November 3 in a major Amendment Second Amendment, which is about whether the Constitution guarantees the right to carry arms outside the home, the court’s calendar said Monday.
The judges announced in April that they would be considering the National Rifle Association-sponsored challenge to a centuries-old New York law requiring some applicants to provide “reasonable grounds” for granting licenses to carry a concealed handgun in public Receive.
Lower courts had upheld the law on the challengers’ objections, who argued that these rules violated the second amendment. Guns proponents say that numerous other states have similar laws in place.
“Repeating a mistake does not cure the mistake; it only increases the need for review by this court,” the appeal to the Supreme Court said.
Read more about CNBC’s political coverage:
The arguments will be heard by a conservative Supreme Court this fall, with six of the nine judges appointed by Republicans.
The decision to raise the case could be a result of the dramatic shift in the court’s ideological makeup under former Republican President Donald Trump, who appointed Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.
The recent Supreme Court rulings on guns came more than a decade ago when the court ruled that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to carry a gun indoors for self-defense.
Last year, the court dismissed a key ruling in yet another gun regulations case in New York, which has some of the toughest regulations in the country.
The November case stems from a lawsuit filed in 2018 by the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association and Robert Nash and Brandon Koch, two New Yorkers whose applications to carry guns in public had been denied in self-defense.
The licensing officer rejected Nash and Koch’s applications, saying they had “shown no particular need for self-defense that stood out”. [them] by the general public. “
A federal judge in Syracuse dismissed a legal challenge to the New York Rules in December 2018, saying, “Nash and Koch fail to meet the ‘reasonable cause’ requirement because they are not ‘exposed to any’ special or unique danger ‘ [their] Life.'”
A federal appeals court upheld the lower court’s decision not to grant the men the licenses they had applied for.
The motion to the Supreme Court to review the case argues that the appeal judgment, which upholds New York law, was “untenable”.
“In his view, the Second Amendment can protect a fundamental, individual right of the ‘people’, but the state can in principle and individually determine which persons (if any) are allowed to exercise this right,” says the petition.
This Supreme Court appeal was drafted by Paul Clement, who served as attorney general under former President George W. Bush.
New York attorney general Letitia James argued in February that the Supreme Court should reject the case.
“The law is consistent with the historical scope of the second amendment and directly promotes New York’s overriding interests in public safety and crime prevention,” James wrote in the reply.