WEBVTT - SCOTUS Weighs Second Amendment Showdown Before 2020

0:00:03.480 --> 0:00:07.560
<v Speaker 1>Welcome to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. I'm June Grosso. Every

0:00:07.640 --> 0:00:10.440
<v Speaker 1>day we bring you insight and analysis into the most

0:00:10.480 --> 0:00:13.399
<v Speaker 1>important legal news of the day. You can find more

0:00:13.480 --> 0:00:18.040
<v Speaker 1>episodes of the Bloomberg Law Podcast on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud,

0:00:18.320 --> 0:00:22.239
<v Speaker 1>and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcasts. The debate over

0:00:22.320 --> 0:00:24.680
<v Speaker 1>gun policy has been revived in the wake of the

0:00:24.760 --> 0:00:27.680
<v Speaker 1>mass shootings in Dayton and El Paso. On his way

0:00:27.720 --> 0:00:30.440
<v Speaker 1>to visit those cities this morning, President Trump said there's

0:00:30.480 --> 0:00:34.800
<v Speaker 1>no political appetite for an assault weapons band, but legislation

0:00:34.920 --> 0:00:39.040
<v Speaker 1>for background checks, it's a different story. There's a great appetite,

0:00:39.479 --> 0:00:43.080
<v Speaker 1>and I've been a very strong appetite for background checks,

0:00:43.120 --> 0:00:45.839
<v Speaker 1>and I think we could bring up background checks like

0:00:45.920 --> 0:00:49.640
<v Speaker 1>we've never had before. And the Supreme Court is weighing

0:00:49.640 --> 0:00:52.760
<v Speaker 1>a Second Amendment showdown for the first time in a decade.

0:00:53.000 --> 0:00:57.240
<v Speaker 1>Joining me is Bloomberg News Supreme Court reporter Greg store So. Greg.

0:00:57.240 --> 0:01:00.240
<v Speaker 1>Back in January, the Justice Is said they would hear

0:01:00.280 --> 0:01:03.400
<v Speaker 1>a challenge to New York City rules that limit where

0:01:03.480 --> 0:01:07.280
<v Speaker 1>licensed handguns can be taken while locked in loaded. What

0:01:07.440 --> 0:01:13.080
<v Speaker 1>happened June the cases about um whether you can take

0:01:13.319 --> 0:01:16.640
<v Speaker 1>these guns outside the city limits to something like a

0:01:16.720 --> 0:01:22.640
<v Speaker 1>target range, um to a second home. Uh, there's a

0:01:22.680 --> 0:01:25.400
<v Speaker 1>group of residents sued and said it violates our Second

0:01:25.400 --> 0:01:29.800
<v Speaker 1>Amendment rights. After the Court agreed to hear the case,

0:01:30.120 --> 0:01:33.360
<v Speaker 1>the city, under pressure for some from groups that were

0:01:33.360 --> 0:01:35.640
<v Speaker 1>worried that they were going to get a ruling that

0:01:35.680 --> 0:01:38.760
<v Speaker 1>would expand the Second Amendment, the city changed its rules.

0:01:38.959 --> 0:01:42.000
<v Speaker 1>It essentially said, you can do all those things. You

0:01:42.000 --> 0:01:46.240
<v Speaker 1>can take it to a shooting range or competition outside

0:01:46.240 --> 0:01:48.040
<v Speaker 1>the city, you can take it to a second home.

0:01:48.400 --> 0:01:50.160
<v Speaker 1>And now the city is trying to get the Supreme

0:01:50.160 --> 0:01:53.200
<v Speaker 1>Court to drop the case, saying the people who sued

0:01:53.240 --> 0:01:55.320
<v Speaker 1>got everything they asked for. There's nothing left for you

0:01:55.400 --> 0:01:58.640
<v Speaker 1>to decide. So why would the court take on a

0:01:58.760 --> 0:02:02.880
<v Speaker 1>case on a law that's changed. Isn't it moot? Well

0:02:02.880 --> 0:02:05.680
<v Speaker 1>that the argument is that it is moot. The Supreme Court,

0:02:05.720 --> 0:02:08.680
<v Speaker 1>though in the past, has said if you volunteer, if

0:02:08.720 --> 0:02:12.480
<v Speaker 1>we've already agreed to hear a case and you voluntarily

0:02:12.680 --> 0:02:15.520
<v Speaker 1>change your behavior to try to make the case go away,

0:02:15.919 --> 0:02:18.639
<v Speaker 1>we're gonna be pretty skeptical of that. We don't want

0:02:18.680 --> 0:02:22.080
<v Speaker 1>to have our ability to decide these big issues that

0:02:22.120 --> 0:02:26.920
<v Speaker 1>are supposed to apply nationwide undermine by litigan, who's just

0:02:27.000 --> 0:02:29.200
<v Speaker 1>worried about losing the case now that we've agreed to

0:02:29.280 --> 0:02:32.640
<v Speaker 1>hear it. So there are some uh, there is some

0:02:32.760 --> 0:02:37.080
<v Speaker 1>precedent that would uh support the idea that the Supreme

0:02:37.120 --> 0:02:40.040
<v Speaker 1>Court will go ahead and rule. And our gun rights

0:02:40.120 --> 0:02:43.639
<v Speaker 1>advocates so sure of themselves that the Supreme Court is

0:02:43.680 --> 0:02:48.639
<v Speaker 1>going to expand gun rights across the country with this. Uh,

0:02:48.960 --> 0:02:52.480
<v Speaker 1>they are pretty confident. Uh the and in fact, folks

0:02:52.520 --> 0:02:55.560
<v Speaker 1>on the other side, the people who are skeptical about

0:02:55.560 --> 0:02:57.880
<v Speaker 1>the Second Amendment are are are quite worried about this

0:02:57.919 --> 0:03:00.959
<v Speaker 1>case and would love to see it go way. Uh.

0:03:01.040 --> 0:03:04.320
<v Speaker 1>You know, these rules are pretty strict, that people challenging

0:03:04.360 --> 0:03:07.440
<v Speaker 1>them said, through the strictest in the in the nation. Uh.

0:03:07.560 --> 0:03:13.400
<v Speaker 1>They don't, for example, Uh, let you um, you know,

0:03:13.480 --> 0:03:16.560
<v Speaker 1>take it to a target range that might be closer

0:03:16.600 --> 0:03:19.520
<v Speaker 1>to your home but just happens to be outside the

0:03:19.560 --> 0:03:22.639
<v Speaker 1>city limits. They say, it's really hard to justify those

0:03:23.200 --> 0:03:25.480
<v Speaker 1>Whether that would really be an expansion of the Second

0:03:25.520 --> 0:03:29.680
<v Speaker 1>Amendment is debatable, But given that the Supreme Court hasn't,

0:03:29.680 --> 0:03:32.080
<v Speaker 1>as you said at the beginning, taking up a Second

0:03:32.080 --> 0:03:35.640
<v Speaker 1>Amendment case in a decade, if the Court were to rule,

0:03:35.800 --> 0:03:38.440
<v Speaker 1>it would be big just for that reason. And has

0:03:38.600 --> 0:03:42.600
<v Speaker 1>the courts moved to a more conservative court in those

0:03:42.640 --> 0:03:45.680
<v Speaker 1>ten years, would that make a difference. Yeah, it might

0:03:45.800 --> 0:03:48.760
<v Speaker 1>make a difference. The biggest change, as in a lot

0:03:48.800 --> 0:03:51.840
<v Speaker 1>of areas, is probably with Justice Breck Kavanaugh replacing the

0:03:51.880 --> 0:03:56.120
<v Speaker 1>retired Justice Anthony Kennedy. It seemed as though Kennedy was

0:03:56.200 --> 0:03:58.160
<v Speaker 1>the swing vote on this issue, as he was in

0:03:58.240 --> 0:04:02.600
<v Speaker 1>so many other areas. Um And just as kavanaughs record

0:04:02.760 --> 0:04:05.520
<v Speaker 1>as a federal Appeals Court judge has been very much

0:04:05.560 --> 0:04:08.920
<v Speaker 1>a strong supporter of the right to bear arms and

0:04:08.960 --> 0:04:13.000
<v Speaker 1>the Second Amendment. Uh So it may be that whatever

0:04:13.040 --> 0:04:15.240
<v Speaker 1>happens with this case, we see a Supreme Court that

0:04:15.360 --> 0:04:18.440
<v Speaker 1>is more eager to jump into the fray and expand

0:04:18.480 --> 0:04:22.640
<v Speaker 1>Second Amendment rights. There's some irony here because the Supreme

0:04:22.680 --> 0:04:25.719
<v Speaker 1>Court has been holding back on an even more explosive

0:04:25.960 --> 0:04:29.560
<v Speaker 1>gun case, a New Jersey case, while they're considering the

0:04:29.560 --> 0:04:32.680
<v Speaker 1>New York case. Yeah. And and there's a real possibility

0:04:32.720 --> 0:04:35.200
<v Speaker 1>if the Court were to dismissed the New York case,

0:04:35.240 --> 0:04:37.440
<v Speaker 1>that it could take up the New Jersey case. That

0:04:37.480 --> 0:04:41.360
<v Speaker 1>one involves not the right to transport a gun that's unloaded,

0:04:41.360 --> 0:04:43.720
<v Speaker 1>and locked. But the right to carry a loaded weapon

0:04:43.880 --> 0:04:47.160
<v Speaker 1>and New Jersey, like a number of other states, UH,

0:04:47.279 --> 0:04:50.080
<v Speaker 1>sharply limits who can do that. It requires you to

0:04:50.080 --> 0:04:53.120
<v Speaker 1>show some sort of special reason why you need to

0:04:53.120 --> 0:04:56.279
<v Speaker 1>be able to carry a weapon with you in public.

0:04:56.560 --> 0:04:59.680
<v Speaker 1>Lower courts, federal appeals courts are divided on that question.

0:05:00.279 --> 0:05:03.720
<v Speaker 1>So UH, there's a very good chance that the Court

0:05:03.760 --> 0:05:05.559
<v Speaker 1>would agree to take that up. They may even agree

0:05:05.560 --> 0:05:07.080
<v Speaker 1>to take it up after the New York case if

0:05:07.080 --> 0:05:09.800
<v Speaker 1>they hang on to it. But if they get rid

0:05:09.839 --> 0:05:12.960
<v Speaker 1>of the New York case UH in the next couple

0:05:12.960 --> 0:05:15.480
<v Speaker 1>of months, it's possible they could hear the New Jersey

0:05:15.480 --> 0:05:18.839
<v Speaker 1>case during this upcoming term. So, Greg, for those of

0:05:18.880 --> 0:05:21.320
<v Speaker 1>us who don't follow the court as closely as you do,

0:05:21.440 --> 0:05:25.960
<v Speaker 1>explain why they'd hold one case while another one percolates

0:05:26.279 --> 0:05:29.400
<v Speaker 1>through their system there as opposed to just taking them

0:05:29.400 --> 0:05:31.800
<v Speaker 1>on when when they come up and when they think

0:05:31.800 --> 0:05:34.760
<v Speaker 1>the time is right. Well, they occasionally will do that

0:05:34.839 --> 0:05:37.320
<v Speaker 1>if they have two cases that have closely related issues,

0:05:37.400 --> 0:05:40.920
<v Speaker 1>but but basically the Court likes to move methodically. Usually

0:05:40.960 --> 0:05:44.560
<v Speaker 1>they do, and if uh they've already taken a case

0:05:45.040 --> 0:05:48.680
<v Speaker 1>that might affect how that second case comes out, then

0:05:48.720 --> 0:05:50.720
<v Speaker 1>they can hang onto the second case, and once they

0:05:50.760 --> 0:05:53.599
<v Speaker 1>decide the first case, just kick the second case back

0:05:53.640 --> 0:05:56.320
<v Speaker 1>to the lower court and say, okay, now, reconsiderate after

0:05:56.400 --> 0:05:59.760
<v Speaker 1>you've taken a look at this ruling in the first case.

0:06:00.279 --> 0:06:02.279
<v Speaker 1>That's kind of a way where the Supreme Court doesn't

0:06:02.320 --> 0:06:05.000
<v Speaker 1>have to decide everything itself. It can kick stuff back

0:06:05.000 --> 0:06:07.760
<v Speaker 1>down to the lower courts and let them decide. Now.

0:06:08.600 --> 0:06:12.960
<v Speaker 1>If the Supreme Court does take or does continue to

0:06:13.000 --> 0:06:15.400
<v Speaker 1>take the New York case, that would mean that a

0:06:15.480 --> 0:06:19.159
<v Speaker 1>decision in this case would be in the heat of

0:06:19.160 --> 0:06:23.400
<v Speaker 1>the presidential campaign. And as we've said many times before,

0:06:23.880 --> 0:06:27.000
<v Speaker 1>Chief Justice Roberts likes to stay away from politics if

0:06:27.000 --> 0:06:29.960
<v Speaker 1>you can, he does, He's going to have hard time

0:06:30.000 --> 0:06:32.159
<v Speaker 1>avoiding it in this upcoming term. They are an awful

0:06:32.160 --> 0:06:33.880
<v Speaker 1>lot of issues, some of which we've talked about, some

0:06:33.920 --> 0:06:36.320
<v Speaker 1>of which I'm sure we will uh down the road,

0:06:36.720 --> 0:06:38.480
<v Speaker 1>that are going to be big political issues that the

0:06:38.520 --> 0:06:43.320
<v Speaker 1>Court will be deciding uh next June or or thereabouts. Uh.

0:06:43.360 --> 0:06:46.359
<v Speaker 1>This would be one of those cases. It's possible, though,

0:06:46.800 --> 0:06:50.320
<v Speaker 1>that this will not be your classic five for split

0:06:50.760 --> 0:06:53.120
<v Speaker 1>only because uh, you know, folks, I talked to you

0:06:53.160 --> 0:06:56.040
<v Speaker 1>on both sides of the case say that New York City, uh,

0:06:56.400 --> 0:07:00.000
<v Speaker 1>you know, based on the courts Supreme courts earlier precedents,

0:07:00.200 --> 0:07:03.839
<v Speaker 1>has an especially weak case here. So maybe that even

0:07:03.920 --> 0:07:06.880
<v Speaker 1>a couple of the liberal justices will will agree to

0:07:06.960 --> 0:07:10.040
<v Speaker 1>side with the residents. About about a minute here, Greg,

0:07:10.520 --> 0:07:14.000
<v Speaker 1>what has the Supreme Court basically stayed away from the

0:07:14.040 --> 0:07:18.160
<v Speaker 1>Second Amendment? You know, goney issues for so long? For decade.

0:07:18.640 --> 0:07:22.840
<v Speaker 1>It's a real mystery. Um, They've had many good opportunities.

0:07:23.160 --> 0:07:26.360
<v Speaker 1>Generally they don't tell us why they've decided not to

0:07:26.440 --> 0:07:29.920
<v Speaker 1>take something. But you know, yeah, I mean it may

0:07:29.920 --> 0:07:31.920
<v Speaker 1>be that Justice Kennedy was the one holding them back.

0:07:31.920 --> 0:07:34.440
<v Speaker 1>We don't know that for sure, but we may be

0:07:34.520 --> 0:07:36.360
<v Speaker 1>finding out in the next year or two. All Right,

0:07:36.400 --> 0:07:39.040
<v Speaker 1>Thanks so much, Gregg. That's Greg Store, Bloomberg News, Supreme

0:07:39.080 --> 0:07:42.880
<v Speaker 1>Court reporter and a disclaimer. Michael Bloomberg, the majority owner

0:07:42.920 --> 0:07:46.120
<v Speaker 1>of Bloomberg LP, the parent company of Bloomberg News, is

0:07:46.160 --> 0:07:50.120
<v Speaker 1>a donor to groups that support gun control, including every

0:07:50.160 --> 0:07:55.160
<v Speaker 1>Town for Gun Safety. Thanks for listening to the Bloomberg

0:07:55.240 --> 0:07:58.280
<v Speaker 1>Law Podcast. You can subscribe and listen to the show

0:07:58.320 --> 0:08:01.920
<v Speaker 1>on Apple podcast, sound Cloud, and on Bloomberg dot com

0:08:02.000 --> 0:08:11.640
<v Speaker 1>slash podcast. I'm June Grosso, This is Bloomberg, m