{"id":21950,"date":"2020-06-11T09:34:44","date_gmt":"2020-06-11T13:34:44","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.gunpoliticsny.com\/?p=21950"},"modified":"2020-06-11T09:34:44","modified_gmt":"2020-06-11T13:34:44","slug":"justice-alitos-second-amendment","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.gunpoliticsny.com\/?p=21950","title":{"rendered":"Justice Alito\u2019s Second Amendment"},"content":{"rendered":"

Jake Charles<\/a> writes at the Duke Center for Firearms Law<\/a> regarding Justice Alito’s<\/a> position in the NYSRPA v. City of New York<\/a><\/em> case:<\/p>\n

“… That brings us to NYSRPA\u2014a civil lawsuit challenging New York City\u2019s since repealed restrictions on firearm transport. There, Justice Alito devoted most of his attention to the mootness question. But he also went on to decide\u2014as \u201cnot a close question\u201d\u2014that the restriction violated the Second Amendment<\/a>. The transport law impacted \u201cthe same core Second Amendment<\/a> right, the right to keep a handgun in the home for self-defense\u201d as in Heller<\/a> because it did not permit the necessary concomitants of that right. And \u201c[o]nce it is recognized that the right at issue is a concomitant of the same right recognized in Heller, it became incumbent on the City to justify the restrictions its rule imposes.\u201d (By recognizing the need for a justification after first finding the right burdened, Justice Alito might be seen as implicitly endorsing the two-part framework used by all the courts of appeals, and thus implicitly rejecting a categorical historical approach.) He went on to say that \u201c[i]f history is not sufficient to show that the New York City ordinance is unconstitutional, any doubt is dispelled by the weakness of the City\u2019s showing that its travel restriction significantly promoted public safety.\u201d He found no evidence to justify the restrictions. He concluded: \u201cWe are told that the mode of review in this case is representative of the way Heller has been treated in the lower courts. If that is true, there is cause for concern.\u201d …”<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Read the full article here<\/a>.<\/p>\n