Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. I'm June Grosso. Every
Speaker 1: day we bring you insight and analysis into the most
Speaker 1: important legal news of the day. You can find more
Speaker 1: episodes of the Bloomberg Law Podcast on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud,
Speaker 1: and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcasts. The debate over
Speaker 1: gun policy has been revived in the wake of the
Speaker 1: mass shootings in Dayton and El Paso. On his way
Speaker 1: to visit those cities this morning, President Trump said there's
Speaker 1: no political appetite for an assault weapons band, but legislation
Speaker 1: for background checks, it's a different story. There's a great appetite,
Speaker 1: and I've been a very strong appetite for background checks,
Speaker 1: and I think we could bring up background checks like
Speaker 1: we've never had before. And the Supreme Court is weighing
Speaker 1: a Second Amendment showdown for the first time in a decade.
Speaker 1: Joining me is Bloomberg News Supreme Court reporter Greg store So. Greg.
Speaker 1: Back in January, the Justice Is said they would hear
Speaker 1: a challenge to New York City rules that limit where
Speaker 1: licensed handguns can be taken while locked in loaded. What
Speaker 1: happened June the cases about um whether you can take
Speaker 1: these guns outside the city limits to something like a
Speaker 1: target range, um to a second home. Uh, there's a
Speaker 1: group of residents sued and said it violates our Second
Speaker 1: Amendment rights. After the Court agreed to hear the case,
Speaker 1: the city, under pressure for some from groups that were
Speaker 1: worried that they were going to get a ruling that
Speaker 1: would expand the Second Amendment, the city changed its rules.
Speaker 1: It essentially said, you can do all those things. You
Speaker 1: can take it to a shooting range or competition outside
Speaker 1: the city, you can take it to a second home.
Speaker 1: And now the city is trying to get the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court to drop the case, saying the people who sued
Speaker 1: got everything they asked for. There's nothing left for you
Speaker 1: to decide. So why would the court take on a
Speaker 1: case on a law that's changed. Isn't it moot? Well
Speaker 1: that the argument is that it is moot. The Supreme Court,
Speaker 1: though in the past, has said if you volunteer, if
Speaker 1: we've already agreed to hear a case and you voluntarily
Speaker 1: change your behavior to try to make the case go away,
Speaker 1: we're gonna be pretty skeptical of that. We don't want
Speaker 1: to have our ability to decide these big issues that
Speaker 1: are supposed to apply nationwide undermine by litigan, who's just
Speaker 1: worried about losing the case now that we've agreed to
Speaker 1: hear it. So there are some uh, there is some
Speaker 1: precedent that would uh support the idea that the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court will go ahead and rule. And our gun rights
Speaker 1: advocates so sure of themselves that the Supreme Court is
Speaker 1: going to expand gun rights across the country with this. Uh,
Speaker 1: they are pretty confident. Uh the and in fact, folks
Speaker 1: on the other side, the people who are skeptical about
Speaker 1: the Second Amendment are are are quite worried about this
Speaker 1: case and would love to see it go way. Uh.
Speaker 1: You know, these rules are pretty strict, that people challenging
Speaker 1: them said, through the strictest in the in the nation. Uh.
Speaker 1: They don't, for example, Uh, let you um, you know,
Speaker 1: take it to a target range that might be closer
Speaker 1: to your home but just happens to be outside the
Speaker 1: city limits. They say, it's really hard to justify those
Speaker 1: Whether that would really be an expansion of the Second
Speaker 1: Amendment is debatable, But given that the Supreme Court hasn't,
Speaker 1: as you said at the beginning, taking up a Second
Speaker 1: Amendment case in a decade, if the Court were to rule,
Speaker 1: it would be big just for that reason. And has
Speaker 1: the courts moved to a more conservative court in those
Speaker 1: ten years, would that make a difference. Yeah, it might
Speaker 1: make a difference. The biggest change, as in a lot
Speaker 1: of areas, is probably with Justice Breck Kavanaugh replacing the
Speaker 1: retired Justice Anthony Kennedy. It seemed as though Kennedy was
Speaker 1: the swing vote on this issue, as he was in
Speaker 1: so many other areas. Um And just as kavanaughs record
Speaker 1: as a federal Appeals Court judge has been very much
Speaker 1: a strong supporter of the right to bear arms and
Speaker 1: the Second Amendment. Uh So it may be that whatever
Speaker 1: happens with this case, we see a Supreme Court that
Speaker 1: is more eager to jump into the fray and expand
Speaker 1: Second Amendment rights. There's some irony here because the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court has been holding back on an even more explosive
Speaker 1: gun case, a New Jersey case, while they're considering the
Speaker 1: New York case. Yeah. And and there's a real possibility
Speaker 1: if the Court were to dismissed the New York case,
Speaker 1: that it could take up the New Jersey case. That
Speaker 1: one involves not the right to transport a gun that's unloaded,
Speaker 1: and locked. But the right to carry a loaded weapon
Speaker 1: and New Jersey, like a number of other states, UH,
Speaker 1: sharply limits who can do that. It requires you to
Speaker 1: show some sort of special reason why you need to
Speaker 1: be able to carry a weapon with you in public.
Speaker 1: Lower courts, federal appeals courts are divided on that question.
Speaker 1: So UH, there's a very good chance that the Court
Speaker 1: would agree to take that up. They may even agree
Speaker 1: to take it up after the New York case if
Speaker 1: they hang on to it. But if they get rid
Speaker 1: of the New York case UH in the next couple
Speaker 1: of months, it's possible they could hear the New Jersey
Speaker 1: case during this upcoming term. So, Greg, for those of
Speaker 1: us who don't follow the court as closely as you do,
Speaker 1: explain why they'd hold one case while another one percolates
Speaker 1: through their system there as opposed to just taking them
Speaker 1: on when when they come up and when they think
Speaker 1: the time is right. Well, they occasionally will do that
Speaker 1: if they have two cases that have closely related issues,
Speaker 1: but but basically the Court likes to move methodically. Usually
Speaker 1: they do, and if uh they've already taken a case
Speaker 1: that might affect how that second case comes out, then
Speaker 1: they can hang onto the second case, and once they
Speaker 1: decide the first case, just kick the second case back
Speaker 1: to the lower court and say, okay, now, reconsiderate after
Speaker 1: you've taken a look at this ruling in the first case.
Speaker 1: That's kind of a way where the Supreme Court doesn't
Speaker 1: have to decide everything itself. It can kick stuff back
Speaker 1: down to the lower courts and let them decide. Now.
Speaker 1: If the Supreme Court does take or does continue to
Speaker 1: take the New York case, that would mean that a
Speaker 1: decision in this case would be in the heat of
Speaker 1: the presidential campaign. And as we've said many times before,
Speaker 1: Chief Justice Roberts likes to stay away from politics if
Speaker 1: you can, he does, He's going to have hard time
Speaker 1: avoiding it in this upcoming term. They are an awful
Speaker 1: lot of issues, some of which we've talked about, some
Speaker 1: of which I'm sure we will uh down the road,
Speaker 1: that are going to be big political issues that the
Speaker 1: Court will be deciding uh next June or or thereabouts. Uh.
Speaker 1: This would be one of those cases. It's possible, though,
Speaker 1: that this will not be your classic five for split
Speaker 1: only because uh, you know, folks, I talked to you
Speaker 1: on both sides of the case say that New York City, uh,
Speaker 1: you know, based on the courts Supreme courts earlier precedents,
Speaker 1: has an especially weak case here. So maybe that even
Speaker 1: a couple of the liberal justices will will agree to
Speaker 1: side with the residents. About about a minute here, Greg,
Speaker 1: what has the Supreme Court basically stayed away from the
Speaker 1: Second Amendment? You know, goney issues for so long? For decade.
Speaker 1: It's a real mystery. Um, They've had many good opportunities.
Speaker 1: Generally they don't tell us why they've decided not to
Speaker 1: take something. But you know, yeah, I mean it may
Speaker 1: be that Justice Kennedy was the one holding them back.
Speaker 1: We don't know that for sure, but we may be
Speaker 1: finding out in the next year or two. All Right,
Speaker 1: Thanks so much, Gregg. That's Greg Store, Bloomberg News, Supreme
Speaker 1: Court reporter and a disclaimer. Michael Bloomberg, the majority owner
Speaker 1: of Bloomberg LP, the parent company of Bloomberg News, is
Speaker 1: a donor to groups that support gun control, including every
Speaker 1: Town for Gun Safety. Thanks for listening to the Bloomberg
Speaker 1: Law Podcast. You can subscribe and listen to the show
Speaker 1: on Apple podcast, sound Cloud, and on Bloomberg dot com
Speaker 1: slash podcast. I'm June Grosso, This is Bloomberg, m