Speaker 1: With the details of the worst shooting in US history unfolding,
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court left its biggest gun rights case on
Speaker 1: the shelf today, not saying whether it would grant or
Speaker 1: deni review of a case in which the Florida Supreme
Speaker 1: Court upheld a law banning people from openly carrying firearms
Speaker 1: in public. In d C, another setback for officials and
Speaker 1: their efforts to enforce the city's strict limits on carrying
Speaker 1: concealed guns. In July, a three member panel of the
Speaker 1: d C Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a law
Speaker 1: which requires an applicant to show good reason for needing
Speaker 1: to carry a concealed weapon violate the Second Amendment. The
Speaker 1: DC Attorney General asked the full Court of Appeals to
Speaker 1: rehear the case, but the court declined without any explanation.
Speaker 1: Joining us now is a renowned expert on the Second Amendment,
Speaker 1: Adam Winkler, a professor at u c l A Law School. Adam,
Speaker 1: does this order mean that none of the judges even
Speaker 1: asked for a vote on the rehearing? Um? Well, it's me.
Speaker 1: It's sounds from our reports that none of the judges
Speaker 1: asked for rehearing as far as we know. UM, it's
Speaker 1: kind of surprising, and light of the fact that the
Speaker 1: d C Circuit has a majority of pointees from Democratic
Speaker 1: presidents and President Obama put several people on the court,
Speaker 1: one might expect, given what we've seen in previous circuits,
Speaker 1: that Democratic appointees would be more likely to take this
Speaker 1: case on bunk and reconsider UH decisions striking down discretionary permitting.
Speaker 1: So it was kind of surprising what we saw from
Speaker 1: the d C Circuit. Let's go back to July and
Speaker 1: explain what the reasoning of the three member panel was
Speaker 1: in ruling it the law violated the Second Amendment. Well, sure,
Speaker 1: What the court said was that the Second Amendment is
Speaker 1: not limited to the home. Although the Supreme Court in
Speaker 1: the Heller case held you have a right to have
Speaker 1: a handgun in your home, UM, the question still remains
Speaker 1: whether you have a right to have a handgun outside
Speaker 1: of your home, and the text of the Second Amendment
Speaker 1: seems to suggest that you do. It says you have
Speaker 1: a right to keep and bear arms, bearing arms being
Speaker 1: to carry a firearm. UH. And the Court said that
Speaker 1: dcs good cause discretionary permitting, like the similar laws in
Speaker 1: effect in Los Angeles and New York and several other
Speaker 1: major cities work as effective bands on possession of firearms
Speaker 1: in public because so few people can obtain a permit.
Speaker 1: And talk about how other circuit courts have addressed this issue,
Speaker 1: This issue has come before several other circuits, and in
Speaker 1: the end, every circuit but the d C Circuit has
Speaker 1: upheld discretionary permitting UM. Most recently, the Ninth Circuit in
Speaker 1: the Peruta case in an on Bank ruling held that
Speaker 1: discretionary permitting was constitutionally permissible. That means there is now
Speaker 1: a circuit split and the Supreme Court, which is avoided
Speaker 1: taking a carry case for some time, may be forced
Speaker 1: now to finally address the issue. And why has the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court been reluctant to address the issue of whether
Speaker 1: the Second Amendment applies outside the home? And how well?
Speaker 1: We don't really know. The justices who are reluctant to
Speaker 1: take such a case haven't really explained it. We do
Speaker 1: know that we've had denials sort of descents from the
Speaker 1: denial assert and carry cases from the likes of Justices Gorsas,
Speaker 1: Alito and Thomas, and before Gors justice Scalia suggesting that
Speaker 1: UM some of the other conservatives on the Court, such
Speaker 1: as Chief Justice John Roberts or Justice Anthony Kennedy, have
Speaker 1: not been willing to take one of these cases. It
Speaker 1: only takes four votes to accept cert UH, and there
Speaker 1: haven't been four votes there yet for a carry case.
Speaker 1: The the gun rights groups have have tangled in court
Speaker 1: for years over the district's gun laws and explained some
Speaker 1: of the fights and how it led to the or
Speaker 1: the court fights and how it led to the landmark decision. Well,
Speaker 1: that's right. So Washington, d C. Has been the focal
Speaker 1: point of so many gun battles around the Second Amendment UH.
Speaker 1: And indeed it was DC's ban on handguns that was
Speaker 1: struck down by the Supreme Court in the landmark Heller case,
Speaker 1: which was the first to read the Second Amendment to
Speaker 1: clearly and unambiguously protect an individual right to bear arms.
Speaker 1: One of the interesting things that we might see, UH,
Speaker 1: is that DC might not appeal even this ruling by
Speaker 1: the d C circuit Um striking down their concealed carey policy.
Speaker 1: In back in two thousand and seven, d C was
Speaker 1: urged by gun control advocates not to appeal the ruling
Speaker 1: striking down their handgun band for fear of getting a
Speaker 1: ruling like Heller. Indeed, that ruling did happen, and it
Speaker 1: may cause DC officials to be a little circumspect about
Speaker 1: sending another case to the Supreme Court. So you think
Speaker 1: it's likely to at and we'll know within days that
Speaker 1: that d C will not appeal this. I wouldn't say
Speaker 1: it's likely. I think the smart money is that DC
Speaker 1: will appeal this. But I'm sure there are those in
Speaker 1: the gun control community who are hoping that d C
Speaker 1: does not appeal the case for fear of getting a
Speaker 1: nationwide ruling that strikes down discretionary permitting in places like
Speaker 1: Los Angeles and San Francisco and New York City. In
Speaker 1: light of what's happened in Las Vegas and and across
Speaker 1: the country in different cases. What what is the current
Speaker 1: state of the battle between the n r A, n
Speaker 1: r A and gun and advocates against guns. Well, sure,
Speaker 1: I think that to figure out who's winning that battle
Speaker 1: requires us to know which playing field we're looking at.
Speaker 1: If we look at the federal level, there is no
Speaker 1: question the n r A is winning. They prevented universal
Speaker 1: background checks from being adopted after Town and now the
Speaker 1: Anlray can count allies as in a majority of both
Speaker 1: Houses of Congress and in the White House, so we're
Speaker 1: not likely to see any new restrictive gun laws passed
Speaker 1: at the federal level. If we turn our attention to
Speaker 1: the state level, however, the story is much more nuanced
Speaker 1: and complex. We've seen very significant gun laws, restrictive gun
Speaker 1: laws adopted in states that cover about half of the
Speaker 1: nation's population since Newtown, and we may see a renewed
Speaker 1: push for more gun control laws, successful push for gun
Speaker 1: control laws at the state level. Can you tell me
Speaker 1: about the Florida case that the Supreme Court has put
Speaker 1: on the back burner right now? We don't know whether
Speaker 1: or not they're going to take it or not. Uh. Yeah,
Speaker 1: there is a Florida case that's on the back burner,
Speaker 1: and i'd be interesting to see whether the Supreme Court
Speaker 1: has any interest in taking any Second Amendment case in
Speaker 1: the wake of this week shootings. You know, we like
Speaker 1: to think that the Court is immune from the headlines
Speaker 1: and that the interpretation of the Constitution is done only
Speaker 1: by light of text and history and structure. But the
Speaker 1: truth is, what's happening in the public sphere does affect
Speaker 1: the justices and I think that these kinds of shootings
Speaker 1: do affect their desire to rule on things like the
Speaker 1: Second Amendment. In a net Florida Supreme Court upheld a
Speaker 1: law banning people from openly carrying firearms in public? Is
Speaker 1: that right in the Supreme Court didn't take it well
Speaker 1: with The Supreme Court has not yet taken it yet.
Speaker 1: It is apparently still on the schedule for the Justice
Speaker 1: to decide whether to take but apparently they have not
Speaker 1: taken it well. We're gonna have to wait and see,
Speaker 1: but not too long because I believe it's it's seven
Speaker 1: business days from thursdays turned down by the d C
Speaker 1: Circuit of Appeals that will know whether or not they
Speaker 1: are going to appeal to the Supreme Court. Thanks as
Speaker 1: always for being on Bloomberg Laws. Play her to have you.
Speaker 1: That's the expert on the Second Amendment, Adam Winkler. He's
Speaker 1: a professor at u c l A law school,