WEBVTT - Appeals Court Blocks D.C. Concealed Carry Law (Audio)

0:00:00.080 --> 0:00:03.440
<v Speaker 1>With the details of the worst shooting in US history unfolding,

0:00:03.560 --> 0:00:06.320
<v Speaker 1>the Supreme Court left its biggest gun rights case on

0:00:06.360 --> 0:00:09.160
<v Speaker 1>the shelf today, not saying whether it would grant or

0:00:09.160 --> 0:00:11.680
<v Speaker 1>deni review of a case in which the Florida Supreme

0:00:11.720 --> 0:00:15.480
<v Speaker 1>Court upheld a law banning people from openly carrying firearms

0:00:15.520 --> 0:00:18.840
<v Speaker 1>in public. In d C, another setback for officials and

0:00:18.880 --> 0:00:21.840
<v Speaker 1>their efforts to enforce the city's strict limits on carrying

0:00:21.880 --> 0:00:25.000
<v Speaker 1>concealed guns. In July, a three member panel of the

0:00:25.040 --> 0:00:27.440
<v Speaker 1>d C Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a law

0:00:27.520 --> 0:00:30.760
<v Speaker 1>which requires an applicant to show good reason for needing

0:00:30.760 --> 0:00:34.240
<v Speaker 1>to carry a concealed weapon violate the Second Amendment. The

0:00:34.320 --> 0:00:36.920
<v Speaker 1>DC Attorney General asked the full Court of Appeals to

0:00:36.960 --> 0:00:40.440
<v Speaker 1>rehear the case, but the court declined without any explanation.

0:00:40.840 --> 0:00:43.479
<v Speaker 1>Joining us now is a renowned expert on the Second Amendment,

0:00:43.520 --> 0:00:47.280
<v Speaker 1>Adam Winkler, a professor at u c l A Law School. Adam,

0:00:47.440 --> 0:00:50.200
<v Speaker 1>does this order mean that none of the judges even

0:00:50.320 --> 0:00:56.440
<v Speaker 1>asked for a vote on the rehearing? Um? Well, it's me.

0:00:56.640 --> 0:00:59.920
<v Speaker 1>It's sounds from our reports that none of the judges

0:01:00.360 --> 0:01:04.679
<v Speaker 1>asked for rehearing as far as we know. UM, it's

0:01:04.720 --> 0:01:07.000
<v Speaker 1>kind of surprising, and light of the fact that the

0:01:07.080 --> 0:01:11.399
<v Speaker 1>d C Circuit has a majority of pointees from Democratic

0:01:11.440 --> 0:01:15.040
<v Speaker 1>presidents and President Obama put several people on the court,

0:01:15.400 --> 0:01:18.680
<v Speaker 1>one might expect, given what we've seen in previous circuits,

0:01:19.000 --> 0:01:21.880
<v Speaker 1>that Democratic appointees would be more likely to take this

0:01:21.920 --> 0:01:27.959
<v Speaker 1>case on bunk and reconsider UH decisions striking down discretionary permitting.

0:01:28.120 --> 0:01:29.840
<v Speaker 1>So it was kind of surprising what we saw from

0:01:29.880 --> 0:01:32.520
<v Speaker 1>the d C Circuit. Let's go back to July and

0:01:32.800 --> 0:01:37.880
<v Speaker 1>explain what the reasoning of the three member panel was

0:01:38.280 --> 0:01:43.000
<v Speaker 1>in ruling it the law violated the Second Amendment. Well, sure,

0:01:43.040 --> 0:01:45.520
<v Speaker 1>What the court said was that the Second Amendment is

0:01:45.560 --> 0:01:47.920
<v Speaker 1>not limited to the home. Although the Supreme Court in

0:01:47.920 --> 0:01:49.880
<v Speaker 1>the Heller case held you have a right to have

0:01:49.920 --> 0:01:53.559
<v Speaker 1>a handgun in your home, UM, the question still remains

0:01:53.560 --> 0:01:55.320
<v Speaker 1>whether you have a right to have a handgun outside

0:01:55.360 --> 0:01:57.160
<v Speaker 1>of your home, and the text of the Second Amendment

0:01:57.160 --> 0:01:59.120
<v Speaker 1>seems to suggest that you do. It says you have

0:01:59.160 --> 0:02:03.080
<v Speaker 1>a right to keep and bear arms, bearing arms being

0:02:03.120 --> 0:02:06.680
<v Speaker 1>to carry a firearm. UH. And the Court said that

0:02:07.200 --> 0:02:11.359
<v Speaker 1>dcs good cause discretionary permitting, like the similar laws in

0:02:11.440 --> 0:02:14.519
<v Speaker 1>effect in Los Angeles and New York and several other

0:02:14.560 --> 0:02:18.960
<v Speaker 1>major cities work as effective bands on possession of firearms

0:02:18.960 --> 0:02:21.919
<v Speaker 1>in public because so few people can obtain a permit.

0:02:23.280 --> 0:02:27.480
<v Speaker 1>And talk about how other circuit courts have addressed this issue,

0:02:28.560 --> 0:02:33.040
<v Speaker 1>This issue has come before several other circuits, and in

0:02:33.120 --> 0:02:36.120
<v Speaker 1>the end, every circuit but the d C Circuit has

0:02:36.240 --> 0:02:41.480
<v Speaker 1>upheld discretionary permitting UM. Most recently, the Ninth Circuit in

0:02:41.520 --> 0:02:45.120
<v Speaker 1>the Peruta case in an on Bank ruling held that

0:02:45.160 --> 0:02:49.440
<v Speaker 1>discretionary permitting was constitutionally permissible. That means there is now

0:02:49.560 --> 0:02:52.480
<v Speaker 1>a circuit split and the Supreme Court, which is avoided

0:02:52.520 --> 0:02:55.920
<v Speaker 1>taking a carry case for some time, may be forced

0:02:56.000 --> 0:02:58.920
<v Speaker 1>now to finally address the issue. And why has the

0:02:58.960 --> 0:03:02.799
<v Speaker 1>Supreme Court been reluctant to address the issue of whether

0:03:03.240 --> 0:03:07.440
<v Speaker 1>the Second Amendment applies outside the home? And how well?

0:03:07.480 --> 0:03:10.480
<v Speaker 1>We don't really know. The justices who are reluctant to

0:03:10.520 --> 0:03:13.360
<v Speaker 1>take such a case haven't really explained it. We do

0:03:13.440 --> 0:03:17.240
<v Speaker 1>know that we've had denials sort of descents from the

0:03:17.240 --> 0:03:21.880
<v Speaker 1>denial assert and carry cases from the likes of Justices Gorsas,

0:03:22.040 --> 0:03:27.560
<v Speaker 1>Alito and Thomas, and before Gors justice Scalia suggesting that

0:03:27.840 --> 0:03:30.280
<v Speaker 1>UM some of the other conservatives on the Court, such

0:03:30.320 --> 0:03:34.000
<v Speaker 1>as Chief Justice John Roberts or Justice Anthony Kennedy, have

0:03:34.280 --> 0:03:37.000
<v Speaker 1>not been willing to take one of these cases. It

0:03:37.040 --> 0:03:41.520
<v Speaker 1>only takes four votes to accept cert UH, and there

0:03:41.560 --> 0:03:44.320
<v Speaker 1>haven't been four votes there yet for a carry case.

0:03:45.840 --> 0:03:49.880
<v Speaker 1>The the gun rights groups have have tangled in court

0:03:50.200 --> 0:03:54.920
<v Speaker 1>for years over the district's gun laws and explained some

0:03:55.000 --> 0:03:57.560
<v Speaker 1>of the fights and how it led to the or

0:03:57.600 --> 0:04:03.200
<v Speaker 1>the court fights and how it led to the landmark decision. Well,

0:04:03.280 --> 0:04:06.240
<v Speaker 1>that's right. So Washington, d C. Has been the focal

0:04:06.320 --> 0:04:10.280
<v Speaker 1>point of so many gun battles around the Second Amendment UH.

0:04:10.320 --> 0:04:14.800
<v Speaker 1>And indeed it was DC's ban on handguns that was

0:04:15.120 --> 0:04:18.559
<v Speaker 1>struck down by the Supreme Court in the landmark Heller case,

0:04:18.600 --> 0:04:21.839
<v Speaker 1>which was the first to read the Second Amendment to

0:04:22.080 --> 0:04:25.400
<v Speaker 1>clearly and unambiguously protect an individual right to bear arms.

0:04:25.680 --> 0:04:28.320
<v Speaker 1>One of the interesting things that we might see, UH,

0:04:28.400 --> 0:04:32.760
<v Speaker 1>is that DC might not appeal even this ruling by

0:04:32.760 --> 0:04:38.320
<v Speaker 1>the d C circuit Um striking down their concealed carey policy.

0:04:38.480 --> 0:04:41.760
<v Speaker 1>In back in two thousand and seven, d C was

0:04:42.000 --> 0:04:45.360
<v Speaker 1>urged by gun control advocates not to appeal the ruling

0:04:45.400 --> 0:04:48.480
<v Speaker 1>striking down their handgun band for fear of getting a

0:04:48.600 --> 0:04:52.640
<v Speaker 1>ruling like Heller. Indeed, that ruling did happen, and it

0:04:52.680 --> 0:04:56.279
<v Speaker 1>may cause DC officials to be a little circumspect about

0:04:56.400 --> 0:04:59.280
<v Speaker 1>sending another case to the Supreme Court. So you think

0:04:59.320 --> 0:05:02.240
<v Speaker 1>it's likely to at and we'll know within days that

0:05:02.240 --> 0:05:06.080
<v Speaker 1>that d C will not appeal this. I wouldn't say

0:05:06.080 --> 0:05:08.800
<v Speaker 1>it's likely. I think the smart money is that DC

0:05:09.040 --> 0:05:12.839
<v Speaker 1>will appeal this. But I'm sure there are those in

0:05:12.880 --> 0:05:15.600
<v Speaker 1>the gun control community who are hoping that d C

0:05:15.839 --> 0:05:18.640
<v Speaker 1>does not appeal the case for fear of getting a

0:05:18.800 --> 0:05:23.080
<v Speaker 1>nationwide ruling that strikes down discretionary permitting in places like

0:05:23.160 --> 0:05:27.320
<v Speaker 1>Los Angeles and San Francisco and New York City. In

0:05:27.480 --> 0:05:32.080
<v Speaker 1>light of what's happened in Las Vegas and and across

0:05:32.120 --> 0:05:36.040
<v Speaker 1>the country in different cases. What what is the current

0:05:36.160 --> 0:05:40.480
<v Speaker 1>state of the battle between the n r A, n

0:05:40.640 --> 0:05:46.760
<v Speaker 1>r A and gun and advocates against guns. Well, sure,

0:05:46.839 --> 0:05:49.960
<v Speaker 1>I think that to figure out who's winning that battle

0:05:50.040 --> 0:05:52.600
<v Speaker 1>requires us to know which playing field we're looking at.

0:05:52.640 --> 0:05:54.920
<v Speaker 1>If we look at the federal level, there is no

0:05:55.040 --> 0:05:57.960
<v Speaker 1>question the n r A is winning. They prevented universal

0:05:58.000 --> 0:06:01.120
<v Speaker 1>background checks from being adopted after Town and now the

0:06:01.120 --> 0:06:05.400
<v Speaker 1>Anlray can count allies as in a majority of both

0:06:05.400 --> 0:06:08.080
<v Speaker 1>Houses of Congress and in the White House, so we're

0:06:08.080 --> 0:06:10.719
<v Speaker 1>not likely to see any new restrictive gun laws passed

0:06:10.720 --> 0:06:13.039
<v Speaker 1>at the federal level. If we turn our attention to

0:06:13.080 --> 0:06:16.320
<v Speaker 1>the state level, however, the story is much more nuanced

0:06:16.320 --> 0:06:20.200
<v Speaker 1>and complex. We've seen very significant gun laws, restrictive gun

0:06:20.279 --> 0:06:23.960
<v Speaker 1>laws adopted in states that cover about half of the

0:06:24.040 --> 0:06:28.479
<v Speaker 1>nation's population since Newtown, and we may see a renewed

0:06:28.520 --> 0:06:32.080
<v Speaker 1>push for more gun control laws, successful push for gun

0:06:32.120 --> 0:06:35.159
<v Speaker 1>control laws at the state level. Can you tell me

0:06:35.200 --> 0:06:38.960
<v Speaker 1>about the Florida case that the Supreme Court has put

0:06:39.000 --> 0:06:41.000
<v Speaker 1>on the back burner right now? We don't know whether

0:06:41.080 --> 0:06:45.320
<v Speaker 1>or not they're going to take it or not. Uh. Yeah,

0:06:45.360 --> 0:06:48.120
<v Speaker 1>there is a Florida case that's on the back burner,

0:06:48.160 --> 0:06:51.240
<v Speaker 1>and i'd be interesting to see whether the Supreme Court

0:06:51.279 --> 0:06:54.640
<v Speaker 1>has any interest in taking any Second Amendment case in

0:06:54.680 --> 0:06:57.839
<v Speaker 1>the wake of this week shootings. You know, we like

0:06:57.960 --> 0:07:00.920
<v Speaker 1>to think that the Court is immune from the headlines

0:07:00.960 --> 0:07:04.599
<v Speaker 1>and that the interpretation of the Constitution is done only

0:07:04.680 --> 0:07:08.080
<v Speaker 1>by light of text and history and structure. But the

0:07:08.120 --> 0:07:11.000
<v Speaker 1>truth is, what's happening in the public sphere does affect

0:07:11.000 --> 0:07:14.120
<v Speaker 1>the justices and I think that these kinds of shootings

0:07:14.160 --> 0:07:17.280
<v Speaker 1>do affect their desire to rule on things like the

0:07:17.280 --> 0:07:22.480
<v Speaker 1>Second Amendment. In a net Florida Supreme Court upheld a

0:07:22.560 --> 0:07:26.280
<v Speaker 1>law banning people from openly carrying firearms in public? Is

0:07:26.320 --> 0:07:30.360
<v Speaker 1>that right in the Supreme Court didn't take it well

0:07:30.400 --> 0:07:32.720
<v Speaker 1>with The Supreme Court has not yet taken it yet.

0:07:32.760 --> 0:07:37.560
<v Speaker 1>It is apparently still on the schedule for the Justice

0:07:37.600 --> 0:07:41.520
<v Speaker 1>to decide whether to take but apparently they have not

0:07:41.600 --> 0:07:44.440
<v Speaker 1>taken it well. We're gonna have to wait and see,

0:07:44.480 --> 0:07:47.040
<v Speaker 1>but not too long because I believe it's it's seven

0:07:47.120 --> 0:07:51.600
<v Speaker 1>business days from thursdays turned down by the d C

0:07:51.760 --> 0:07:54.880
<v Speaker 1>Circuit of Appeals that will know whether or not they

0:07:54.920 --> 0:07:57.960
<v Speaker 1>are going to appeal to the Supreme Court. Thanks as

0:07:58.000 --> 0:08:00.880
<v Speaker 1>always for being on Bloomberg Laws. Play her to have you.

0:08:00.960 --> 0:08:04.040
<v Speaker 1>That's the expert on the Second Amendment, Adam Winkler. He's

0:08:04.040 --> 0:08:06.040
<v Speaker 1>a professor at u c l A law school,