Supreme Court hears arguments on scope of gun rights in major Second Amendment case | full audio
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 2 ноя 2021
- The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Wednesday for New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, a case challenging a New York gun law that restricts the right to carry a firearm in public.
CBSN is CBS News’ 24/7 digital streaming news service featuring live, anchored coverage available for free across all platforms. Launched in November 2014, the service is a premier destination for breaking news and original storytelling from the deep bench of CBS News correspondents and reporters. CBSN features the top stories of the day as well as deep dives into key issues facing the nation and the world. CBSN has also expanded to launch local news streaming services in major markets across the country. CBSN is currently available on CBSNews.com and the CBS News app across more than 20 platforms, as well as the Paramount+ subscription service.
Subscribe to the CBS News RUclips channel: / cbsnews
Watch CBSN live: cbsn.ws/1PlLpZ7c
Download the CBS News app: cbsn.ws/1Xb1WC8
Follow CBS News on Instagram: /
Like CBS News on Facebook: / cbsnews
Follow CBS News on Twitter: / cbsnews
Subscribe to our newsletters: cbsn.ws/1RqHw7T
Try Paramount+ free: bit.ly/2OiW1kZ
For video licensing inquiries, contact: licensing@veritone.com
"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776
Deterrence
For those who don't know who Beccaria is, he is basically the father of Criminological sciences, and came up with many theories that are still proven valid today. Yes, he got some things wrong, but a lot of things he got right. He also didn't believe in Capital punishment, something that I personally disagree on, but he still believed that people should be armed and able to carry arms, and that the use of those arms was valid for self defense.
@@GGIC. Yes deterrence. deterrence from defending yourself.
The word “Arms” in the 2nd Amendment is not spelled out. It doesn’t say “firearms,” per se. A spear and a sword are both arms. So are pepper spray and bean-bag guns.
Also, the 2nd Amendment says nothing about “ammunition.” Constitutionally, you might be able to have all the guns you want, but no ammunition.
@@DaRyteJuan that’s ridiculous.
If you lack context, that’s your fault.
Here’s some reading for you…
“On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776
"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country."
- James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789
“A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined..."
- George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790
"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Stephens Smith, son-in-law of John Adams, December 20, 1787
"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 19, 1785
"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824
"I enclose you a list of the killed, wounded, and captives of the enemy from the commencement of hostilities at Lexington in April, 1775, until November, 1777, since which there has been no event of any consequence ... I think that upon the whole it has been about one half the number lost by them, in some instances more, but in others less. This difference is ascribed to our superiority in taking aim when we fire; every soldier in our army having been intimate with his gun from his infancy."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Giovanni Fabbroni, June 8, 1778
“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
"To disarm the people...[i]s the most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788
"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787
"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of."
- James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788
"...the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone..."
- James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
- William Pitt (the Younger), Speech in the House of Commons, November 18, 1783
“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
- Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
- Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778
"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."
- St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803
"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms, like law, discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance ofpower is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. And while a single nation refuses to lay them down, it is proper that all should keep them up. Horrid mischief would ensue were one-half the world deprived of the use of them; for while avarice and ambition have a place in the heart of man, the weak will become a prey to the strong. The history of every age and nation establishes these truths, and facts need but little arguments when they prove themselves."
- Thomas Paine, "Thoughts on Defensive War" in Pennsylvania Magazine, July 1775
"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788
"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
- Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833
"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty .... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."
- Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, I Annals of Congress 750, August 17, 1789
"For it is a truth, which the experience of ages has attested, that the people are always most in danger when the means of injuring their rights are in the possession of those of whom they entertain the least suspicion."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 25, December 21, 1787
"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
"[I]f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28, January 10, 1788
"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
- Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789
"How many muggings take place in the forest?" - MIC DROP
Any idea what the timestamp is on that quote? I don't have 2 hrs to listen to the whole thing
@@MO-qd6tm Definitely listen to the whole thing when you have the time
Such a mic drop. Followed by the solicitor general stuttering through her nonsense response.
It is beyond hypocritical to see some of the Justices on here(Breyer) speak about how dangerous guns are, as they can request armed guards escort them where ever they go if they want.
dudes a san francisco liberal. The guy at one point tried to squeeze in there that the ruling wont affect NYC lol. He doesnt understand that this is a state law, or he does he is just trying to mislead and hopefully get the majority to cut out NYC. Underwood saw what breyer said and also tried to quickly inject "no, nyc is not in this case" lol . idiots
@Jason from NYC ... Spoken like a true "Don't know history" valedictorian.
Breyer sound like he has no ability to reason.
The New York Law basically guts the second amendment, turns it into a privilege. Under such a law those who cannot prove they have a special need to carry a firearm outside the home, will not be granted a permit to do so. That is a privilege, not a right
My copy of the Constitution has a bill of rights and not a bill of suggestions or for that matter a bill of privileges
That type of law is what the 2nd amendment was written to prevent. Actually, the 2nd amendment guts the NY law, the tyrants in NY forgot who the real bosses are.
Has been the law for over a century.
The reaction, especially white suburban women, should be spectacular.
@@louspingleburken3143 You think so? I see white suburban women afraid. 20K permit issued to 20 something young black men? A few shootings which is inevitable. Then. People whose parents never owned a gun even get to feel scared, then angry.
@@jackgriffith9229 funny , mine too
Question: When does a human lose the right to defend his life.
Answer: Never
That is a false assertion. The only right any organism has in nature is the right to die. What can be inferred from your statement would only increase the risk of terror becoming a normalized part of society. I imagine a day will come when the United States resembles the wartorn desert ruins of the Old world. Mass society has numerous problems that won't be resolved your way.
@@wj3186 😳
You have my permission to not procreate.
@@wj3186 you have a false argument.
And a gun will do that? c'mon and what if you are with a bunch of people and use the gun on the wrong person!
The real question is what you're going to do when trumpet sound from the angles at the coming of Christ at the end of the age?
Lawyers talk too much. If you have to pay for the ability, and/or can be denied permission, to have or bear arms, then your right is being infringed. Everything else is meaningless.
Facts it really isn’t that complicated
You’re not very smart, are you? Please tell me where you can go and get firearms without paying for them.
@@DaRyteJuan You can't be that stupid. He's not talking about the actual cost of the purchasing of a firearm. I have a right to buy food, the government cannot stop me from doing that, but I don't have a right to have the farmer's food free of charge.
The same people who say all these governmental fees to purchase and carry a gun would be picketing the Congress if there was a poll tax law working its way through Congress.
@@DaRyteJuan you know we are laughing.
@@DaRyteJuan Yeah we're laughing at you 😆
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776
The actual full completed draft states “No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms within his own lands or tenements” You’re quoting the very first draft, Very rough draft. The draft quoting was gotten ride of by Thomas Jefferson for a reason. Meaning that if the Supreme Court states you can’t bring guns into private property or in stores and what no it’s perfectly with the bounds of constitutional law and moral law. The actual Virginia constitution states "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
Hey!!!! Who are you calling Free men ?? This is America 🇺🇸 Freedom has been removed from the people for a long time!!! Now shut up and get your jab !!!
@@jackgriffith9229 😥
@@jacobsaquato4168 "On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823
@@jacobsaquato4168 The second amendment is crystal clear and a lot more concise than your comment saying the same thing.
I’m a hiker, i was granted a restricted concealed carry for hiking and camping in upstate NY then found out you’re not allowed to carry with a restricted license out in the woods. Got denied for an unrestricted when applied. I sure hope this chances things a little bit for us up here because being out there with nothing to protect yourself with against animals can be really scary sometimes specially in the dark when going for sunrise and sunsets
New York State needs Constitutional Carry. It's so dangerous in this state anymore and criminals have no fear.
Does not one hike in the woods? The whole idea of having to get a permit to exercise a right is an incredibly stupid situation.
@@Anon54387, While you're correct, the U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled that states with handgun permit structures do not violate the Second Amendment rights of the people since it demonstrates that background checks have been completed.
@@robertortiz8540 but they do and what do background checks have to do with anything?
@@daveonezero6258, In the eyes of the courts, if someone wants to buy a gun, they must pass a background check before the gun store can sell it to them, and if they want to apply for a concealed carry permit 6 months later, they must again pass a background check to ensure they haven't been arrested during that period within 6 months.
It doesn't matter what you or I think because judges are all lawyers, and they all interpret the law and the Constitution differently, and that's what makes us all different people.
Listening to this case convinced me to start voting pro-gun. It was gross to listen to the state of New York and the solicitor general trying to convince the supreme court to take away these people’s rights. That and the way things are going under Biden, I am permanently done with the left.
The word “Arms” in the 2nd Amendment is not spelled out. It doesn’t say “firearms,” per se. A spear and a sword are both arms. So are pepper spray and bean-bag guns.
Also, the 2nd Amendment says nothing about “ammunition.” Constitutionally, you might be able to have all the guns you want, but not ammunition.
@@DaRyteJuan can't have a militia without equal weapons and ammo
@@MikeOxhard69420 The military has attack helicopters, rockets, .50 caliber chain guns and daisy-cutters.
Good luck with your pea-shooters.
@@MikeOxhard69420 How many M1A1 Abrams tanks do you have? 😹😹😹😹
@@DaRyteJuan and we should have the same
I’m a gunsmith carry guns is not dangerous not knowing what your doing is dangerous I don’t hear people saying carrying knives are dangerous FBI statistics more people died from knifed and hands and feet
Say it for the people in the back
What's your thoughts on requiring more specific safety measures such as classes and background checks in exchange for more carry permits issued?
@@MO-qd6tm I’m from Florida, we’re required to take a course and meet state guidelines before we’re allowed to carry, once we do that’s it’s natural most people want to find a fun club and train
The true problem is congress already know the problems we have it’s the mental stability of the American republic cannot be gauged. At one point USA use to foot the bill for people who suffered with mental issues but they soon Realize they couldn’t afford it and scrapped it
Free Speech kills more people. BLM speech killed 28 people in the summer "Post Floyd". Maybe we need SPEECH CONTROL.
If I have a valid drivers license issued from my State that allows me to drive in EVERY STATE, then why if I have a carry license issued by that same State why is it treated differently ?
Just wait. Those states will try to retaliate somehow.
Constitutional Carry will solve that issue.
Move out of New York
Let them folks carry the criminals can’t be the only ones !
That Lawyer just exposed the elitism in government in New York that doesn't care what the common man needs or wants. They truly see us as peasants. We really need to reassert the voice of the common man within this nation.
I am glad I don't live there. Lol. If they repeal Sullian Laws only snake Pliskin will feel safe. The real looser will be suburban women.
@@williamfranz9872 That's why I call our Governor Queen Kathy because she behaves like a queen
@Damian the Supreme Court has ruled that the police have no duty to protect so this nonsense about having police in these highly populated areas to call on in your time of need as she stated is a bunch of hog wash !!
Under the second amendment I should be able to open carry or conceal carry void of permit or licenses. Why is that these law makers get to imply ill intent on law abiding citizens with no felonies and when no crimes have been committed. In reality every offense should be taken case by case post crime taking place. All citizens are assumed innocent until Proven Guilty! Stop trampling our rights!
No doubt.
The term felony was created to attack the Second Amendment as well. It steals a right from a person that completed their debt to society.
A simple note: where in the Second Amendment does it say, “unless that person is a felon”?
We used to only classify heinous acts that harmed people as felonies. Now it's ridiculously easy to inadvertently commit a felony. I argue that a disqualifying felony must also contain a violent and intentional act that harms others.
Y'all do realize most of the people involved in mass shootings didn't have criminal records and got their guns legally. It isn't gangs and felons shooting up schools and other places. It's law abiding citizens.
Murdock v Pennsylvania reinforces this.
Lets go brandon!
You shouldn't be able to monetize SCOTUS audio. This is a service to the people and you shouldn't have ads.
Just use ad block if you don't like ads.
Who cares. The media probably provides the audio equipment. The point is, we’re getting the audio for free
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed
Go Brandon!
It is a delusional statement from a bygone era. If munitions distribution are not properly regulated and gun violence not properly penalized, the nation will degenerate into a condition resembling the wartorn desert civilizations of the Old World.
@@wj3186 The US has had more and more gun restrictions imposed over the past century and for some reason, it seems more degenerate now than prior to 1986 when fully automatic weapons were legal to purchase.
@@wj3186 you have to understand the definition of infringement, to limit or change, then look at whose right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The 2nd will never be out dated, just like none of the other bill of rights will never be out dated. Because we are born with the right to defend ourselves from any threat, even if the threat is the government.
@@wj3186your statement Is delusional.
Thugs don’t go after people who fight back and they do respond well to bullets
Thugs have bad aim and take out innocent people
Facts Lauren
Basic Animal instinct including Human “ animals”, go after the closest weakest prey….guns nullify weak …
Guns are the great “ equality creator”
Grandmas , house wives, weak males in suits and even an occasional socialist have an equal playing field to defend themselves knowing how to use a gun ..
Because it’s classism she’s rich most likely live in New York
Football stadium or other private venue can restrict firearms. It is a private business. I don't patronize those places if there is a pat-down or metal detector.
Wow The NY lawyer is really bad at this lol
Beginning at about 1:04:00 it goes from bad to a level of terrible that is as incomprehensible as it is palpable.
Good let the NY law get shot down 🤷🏻♀️
Her argument literally is, "Most of us here think guns are scary so please don't stop us from trampling the Constitution SCOTUS!"
Lots of “Uhm..”
So according to the state of New York some licensing officer gets to determine who is allowed to exercise their second Amendment rights.
Correct
I live in a may issue state, the State of Hawaii and, quite frankly, Hawaii may never issue a permit... Correction, we are a shall not state as there has not been a carry permit granted in over 20 years here!
What good is a right which one can never exercise unless under the threat of criminal prosecution?
@Damian yes, this is a case about MAY ISSUE. If they rule it unconstitutional, then EVERY state automatically will have SHALL ISSUE at best. For example this case wont effect texas because they have no permits for any gun so they wont have shall issue, but the other states that have MAY ISSUE will automatically go to SHALL ISSUE
Laws are that only as long as they're obeyed. Compliance is optional not guaranteed. If it's unconstitutional then is it a law at all? Just thought seeding
@@tankscrittersandurbanhomes5579 I agree, I believe it is my God given right to see how fit to protect myself and or my family, as long as I do not impede on others life, rights or freedom though the important thing is not getting caught on exercising my right!! 😂
What a sad means of exercising my rights!
@@Bruceless keeping it real love that. God bless
@@tankscrittersandurbanhomes5579 A law is a law and compliance is required. It has to be struck down by the courts on constitutional grounds first by someone filing a case.
“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436 at 491. No right granted or secured by the Constitution of the United States can be impaired or destroyed by a state enactment”. Connolly v. Union Sewer Pipe Co., 184 US 540 at 558.
The Constitution clearly states "a well regulated militia". It states nothing about self defense. Those words aren't in the Constitution. It doesn't say anything about carrying guns in public, or conceal carry.
@@Bigmommafluffy Did you listen to the Judge @1:04.00 ? This was settled in Heller v. DC. What is being discussed: If I have a right to self defense, and I do, what good is that right if it does not accompany me wherever I go?
@@Bigmommafluffy You are bias. Right to marry is not in the constitution. "Common Law" supersedes the Constitution. The Constitution is just a reminder to the federal corporation aka "United States" not to touch our COMMON LAW RIGHTS. 2nd amendment reads, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed".
This is from my firearm argument at the Supreme Court in the case titled Marc Stephens vs Edward Jerejian. They don't want the public to know about my argument which was deleted from the internet, see link below. The case New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen is "BS" because the Supreme Court already ruled we can carry in public..see below:
In a line of decisions, however, the Supreme Court has recognized that a right to keep and bear arms in public does exist under the Constitution. Quoting Heller, “At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.” See Johnson 161; Webster; T. Sheridan, A Complete Dictionary of the English Language (1796); 2 Oxford English Dictionary 20 (2d ed. 1989) (hereinafter Oxford). When used with “arms,” however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose-confrontation. In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998) , in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, Justice Ginsburg wrote that “[s]urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment … indicate[s]: ‘wear, bear, or carry … upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose … of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’ ” Id., at 143 (dissenting opinion) (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 214 (6th ed. 1998)). We think that Justice Ginsburg accurately captured the natural meaning of “bear arms.”
web.archive.org/web/20170219023728/reloadone.com/us-firearm-permit-and-licensing-laws-are-facially-unconstitutional/
@Na'keem Syko Sorry, mate. “BEAR” doesn’t necessarily mean “CARRY.” It could just mean “BE RESPONSIBLE FOR” as in “BEAR the COST.” And even IF the Supreme Court says it means “CARRY,” there’s nothing in the constitution that says the individual has a right to “USE” then. lol
@Na'keem Syko The right to bear arms is not "self defense" or "concealed carry". I'm kinda floored that you're not seeing the different words.
Along Kanan’s logic, a state can restrict speech to only within the home, because that’s a “special place”?
Meant Kagan.
That doesn't make any sense, right?
Clement says he could give up carrying on a subway. This was an abysmal concession. The constitutional right has to exist not just in the destination but in the entire travel. You can't have free access to your right only in a spot of the state's choosing and only how they decide you can exercise it. That's the equivalent of saying you can attend any church you want but you can't have religious material on the subway. How would you get to church? We would never allow a law that says a Catholic has to apply for a permit and be a permit holder to attend mass. We certainly would never ban the carrying of a bible on a subway.
If the subway has as much crime as i have red about. I would not think it s a good example of a place that should be gun free..
Kaepernick exercised his first amendment Right in a football stadium where do you exercise your second amendment right
That is just plain stupid! How many mugging take place on the subway? There's your answer..
@@extraextra4380 For all he went through to get appointed, I thought he had a back bone. Guess not!
Rights cover all American Lands especially for women and school children.
Regarding permits of Catholics to attend Mass… now we have agents trying to push vax passports for admittance.
Freedom Rights are being infringed upon our CITIZENS from multiple directions… in all cases from the GOVERNMENT BODIES.
GOD help us!
All the way with the 2A
Fun fact: I've done the math because I was genuinely curious - Per capita, It's easier to get a concealed carry license in Mexico than it is in LA county (statistically).
The 2A lawyer is very well spoken. So is Justice Kavanaugh.
Kagan certainly isn't.
@@jamesgroce3125 , absolutely. Uhs and ahs tell me she might be used to speaking before thinking.
If you actually look at laws such as the Statute of N. Hampton - which only prohibited the carrying of arms "to the terror of the public," - they actually encouraged concealed carry because; how could the public be terrified, if they didn't know you were armed?
Once again Clement rocked it, dude is extremely bright and always has great counter points. A lot of attorneys are overpaid scumbags, but this guy is worth every penny.
And Breyer is a complete tool, I mean the guy actually used the term "musket" several times in his arguments during the Heller case. What a clown, as are the rest of those on the bench who are blatantly ignoring the printed words.
Yes, he did. He did well toward the beginning and decimated their poor arguments and outright dishonesty is his rebuttal.
Oops. I meant IN his rebuttal.
He did better in the last half. He was way too wishy washy in the "sensitive places" portion though. For example, there is no constitutional basis for the state to say you can't carry on a college campus.
@@musicman1eanda college campuses comes from DC v Heller, when the opinion states that you can regulate the carrying of arms in “sensitive places,” such as schools and courthouses
@@DireAvenger001 sooo he didn't concede anything?
1:00:40 "...how many muggings take place in the forest?" LOL! Winner!
For the right to carry in high crime areas LIKE THE CITY!
If i was to carry in any city in the US it would be NYC
Shall NOT Be Infringed. It doesn't say "sometimes". It doesn't say "except when we are afraid of you". It doesn't say "except when many other people are around". It doesn't say "except when we think you are dangerous".
You only have rights if you're rich...
That’s about right. Two tiered justice system.
No. Those are privileges, not rights. Rights are fundamental in nature. They are so fundamental that they cannot be dependent/contingent upon trivial things such as prosperity.
I realize audio only is because SCOTUS doesn’t allow cameras, but this feed would be much easier to follow if we knew who was speaking at any given time.
If you are a court follower, you know their voices. No criticism to you, just saying court watching is a huge thing. Most of us court followers know their voices and what their opinions will be. It’s fascinating. The more you listen the easier it shall be.
Hiya Nate. You can download both the audio file of this at the Supreme Court web site and the transcript in PDF format. I read along on the transcript as I listened since the transcript says the name of the speaker throughout.
"[S]ome States formally prohibited blacks from possessing firearms. Others enacted legislation prohibiting blacks from carrying firearms without a license, a restriction not imposed on whites", McDonald v. City of Chicago, Ill., 130 S. Ct. 3020 - Supreme Court 2010 at 3082.
The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
Well regulated malitia
Shall not be infringed....PERIOD. Look at all the people being attacked/robbed and raped. The only thing to stop a bad guy is a good guy/gal with a gun.
It is evident from these proceedings is that it is a display of super academic legal wrangling of the several participants over everything except the very brief and simply-worded Amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Concerning the prefatory phrase of the Amendment, the facts are as follows:
1. At one time there was a government-supported (i.e. well-regulated) militia.
2. As time went on, the militia groups of the several states (eventually called the national guard organizations in most states) were desired by the federal government to be under federal control to be used for emergency or military purposes. The states were glad to pass this control to the federal government in return for federal funding of the states' national guard organizations' operating expenses.
3. Since these organizations can no longer be legitimately classified as militia considering that they can be sent hither and yon by the federal government at will in their many foreign adventures e.g. Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan to mention a mere three. They obviously are not considered necessary to keep at home for national defense.
4. Hence the militia is constitutionally still the people and they are given the right to keep and bear arms by their Creator God and this right is affirmed by the Second Amendment.
5. Note that the only hint at the commission of crime mentioned in the Amendment is the possibility of and prohibition of infringement of the right (the infringement presumably by government officials or employees).
Nothing else need be argued in the case of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen.
So, we hear in these proceedings how these justices can use this excess verbiage and crisscrossing irrelevancies to fashion an abortion of a decision and thus worm out of confronting the obvious: there can be no infringement of the right except in cases of underage or impairment that is recognized by any and all reasonable men.
National guard is not,has never been, and cannot be the militia, the national guard is a branch of the united states military they are reserves.
The real reason for the 2nd Amendment is to keep politicians careful and nervous!!!
Bingo. Remember we fought a revolution because our other rights were being violated by a government far, far away.
We are free people not slaves
This is already very close to settled law, from previous SCOTUS decisions.
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, unconnected with service in a militia
US v Miller
Any firearm 'of use to the militia' is protected by the 2nd Amendment.
Murdock v Pennsylvania
The state cannot convert a Right into a Privilege and apply a license or a tax to it.
Marbury v. Madison (1803)
“A Law repugnant to the Constitution is void.”
the U.S. Supreme Court declared an act of Congress to be unconstitutional.
Fascinating arguments though objectively, the argument for the plaintiff was much more cogent and provided better, clearer citations. Counsel for the defendant/respondent was often befuddled and her argument really boiled down to the argument that firearms are inordinately dangerous and must not be allowed to proliferate due to their very nature. The problem with this argument is that CCW shall issue states belie those fears and let’s be honest, the public safety concerns truly boil down to fear. I’m not saying that the fears are completely unfounded necessarily but I think that counsel for the defendant/respondent is expressing many people’s somewhat unnatural fears of firearms. Take the states that are CCW shall issue states, their incidents of gun violence show no increase in gun incidents compared to “good cause” states and in fact, the opposite is the case. Also, the second amendment is quite clear in any event and based on the arguments I’ve heard, I get the sense that the NY CCW permitting scheme will be deemed unconstitutional. We’ll see.
The plaintiffs’ argument could be utterly destroyed with much simpler language than any attorney has uttered heretofore.
The word “Arms” in the 2nd Amendment is not spelled out. It doesn’t say “firearms,” per se. A spear and a sword are both arms. So are pepper spray and bean-bag guns.
Also, the 2nd Amendment says nothing about “ammunition.” Constitutionally, you might be able to have all the guns you want, but no Constitutional right to ammunition.
@@DaRyteJuan Having heard the arguments for the Heller matter, the terms arms, guns, firearms and to include amunition were well defined, established and deemed to be interchangeable.
Hand grenades, bombs and howizters are “Arms” too. But next no one is arguing that the common man should have those.
So you have to ask yourself ‘why?’
The reason is the gun manufacturers want to sell guns. Just like the tobacco industry wants to sell cigarettes.
@@DaRyteJuan Again, the Heller case and actually, many other cases that have come before lower courts and SCOTUS have made the distinction between small arms and weapons that are reserved for exclusive use of the armed forces. It's settled law.
Very well said
The only time I can see disallowing open or concealed carry is when a government or organization has scanners and armed guards to assume responsibility of all attendees. Commercial aircraft, courthouses, football stadiums, are examples.
Where one needs to carry most is in a subway, Central park, downtown Chicago, schools, churches, and especially a synagogues.
This is not even the main issue in NY. To even have a pistol for home defense and target shooting you need to demonstrate "good character" providing 4 references in the county you live in, sometimes in the specific town you live in. This bars anyone moving into the state from owning a pistol for home defence for possibly years.
Don't you have to provide tax information as well?
There is no argument. "Shall not be infringed" plain and simple.
"Well regulated malitia" comes first.
@@shawncrawford3146 And has nothing to do with gun control, "A well regulated (i.e. equipped, trained, and free to assist when needed) militia, being necessary to a free state, the right of the PEOPLE TO BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Period, there is no argument. They meant THE people. Not police, not military, not national guard, PEOPLE.
@@jackwhite1742 So you believe the founders meant for everyone and anyone to have unfettered access to lethal force? That's an extreme position and a very modern interpretation of an amendment that was never interpreted that way before Heller. The 2nd amendment can be regulated without infringing on anything. When the more foundational rights of life and liberty are threatened, there's plenty of room for regulation. The PEOPLE want some protection from the gun cult. We all have the same rights. Over 80% of the people are tired of seeing children killed in school. What doesn't bend, will always break. The 2nd amendment is not zero sum. Every right we have has limits.
@@shawncrawford3146 Yes. That is exactly what the founders meant, and it has always been interrpreted that way, and in fact, was applied like that in every case including when the NFA was passed. Feel free to go ahead and read all the court cases, but also, I would suggest by starting reading a history book, then the personal writimgs of the founders, including the federalist papers. Also, no, 80% of the people want their gun rights left alone. Because gun control doesnt, and never has, worked. Not in any country in history. 2A is absolute and zero sum with no limits, because evil men have no limits. But nice try msking an emotional appeal with an apples to oranges argument. Gun control has nothing to do with mass shootings, or saving children. Bet your pro-choice too. Hypocrite.
@@jackwhite1742 You're just wrong. The framers of the Constitution knew what a malitia was and they wrote the document with the intention of arming the states. Your position is radical. Is there any regulation or red flag laws you'd support?
Caetano v. Massachusetts, 136 S. Ct. 1027 - Supreme Court 2016 at 1030
1. We held that "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding."
2. If the fundamental right of self-defense does not protect Caetano, then the safety of all Americans is left to the mercy of state authorities who may be more concerned about disarming the people than about keeping them safe.
I love Caetano v Massachusetts and don't understand why it isn't the be all end all for striking down assault weapon bans and the like. Everyone talks about Heller, but Caetano is every bit as much of a landmark decision.
@@mikeb.2925 This is from my firearm argument at the Supreme Court in the case titled Marc Stephens vs Edward Jerejian. They don't want the public to know about my argument which was deleted from the internet, see link below. The case New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen is "BS" because the Supreme Court already ruled we can carry in public..see below:
In a line of decisions, however, the Supreme Court has recognized that a right to keep and bear arms in public does exist under the Constitution. Quoting Heller, “At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.” See Johnson 161; Webster; T. Sheridan, A Complete Dictionary of the English Language (1796); 2 Oxford English Dictionary 20 (2d ed. 1989) (hereinafter Oxford). When used with “arms,” however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose-confrontation. In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998) , in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, Justice Ginsburg wrote that “[s]urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment … indicate[s]: ‘wear, bear, or carry … upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose … of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’ ” Id., at 143 (dissenting opinion) (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 214 (6th ed. 1998)). We think that Justice Ginsburg accurately captured the natural meaning of “bear arms.”
web.archive.org/web/20170219023728/reloadone.com/us-firearm-permit-and-licensing-laws-are-facially-unconstitutional/
🇺🇸Apologies for the mic check. Was supposed to be edited out. Having sound issues.
Ouch!
The last 6 minutes was an awfully long mic drop!
2A all the way!!
Let us carry!! #shallnotbeinfringed
@Damian This is from my firearm argument at the Supreme Court in the case titled Marc Stephens vs Edward Jerejian. They don't want the public to know about my argument which was deleted from the internet, see link below. The case New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen is "BS" because the Supreme Court already ruled we can carry in public..see below:
In a line of decisions, however, the Supreme Court has recognized that a right to keep and bear arms in public does exist under the Constitution. Quoting Heller, “At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.” See Johnson 161; Webster; T. Sheridan, A Complete Dictionary of the English Language (1796); 2 Oxford English Dictionary 20 (2d ed. 1989) (hereinafter Oxford). When used with “arms,” however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose-confrontation. In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998) , in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, Justice Ginsburg wrote that “[s]urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment … indicate[s]: ‘wear, bear, or carry … upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose … of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’ ” Id., at 143 (dissenting opinion) (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 214 (6th ed. 1998)). We think that Justice Ginsburg accurately captured the natural meaning of “bear arms.”
web.archive.org/web/20170219023728/reloadone.com/us-firearm-permit-and-licensing-laws-are-facially-unconstitutional/
If we weren't intended to have the right to bear outside the home, why did the court state in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857): "And, to keep and carry arms wherever they went,"?
I don't own a gun but I feel everyone that wants to own and carry one outside of the home should be able to
people want something done without doing anything to get it done and that's the way it's done
Why tf did he concede the subway?? That's as dangerous at times as walking from night at work. It doesn't allow consistency, now if they decide you can't carry there. To exercise your second amendment right then you can't take the subway??? Wtf is that
That was a mistake in an otherwise brilliant argument. His rebuttal was brilliant.
The second amendment is alive and well
These are the best judicial minds available?
I’m ashamed for them.
Why?
@@shaunfosmark9850 are you listening to the ridiculous hypotheticals? “What if someone at a sports event has a gun...?”
News flash your honor, people everywhere have guns. Some legal CCW, most illegal… it’s not a problem.
I have a CCW, my neighbor has a CCW, we’ve never shot anyone.
These hypotheticals are handled by existing law. It’s already illegal to brandish, assault, or harm someone.
What they should be discussing is why they think a little old lady can’t be “allowed” by politicians to protect herself the same as off-duty police officers, or judges, or rich people who can afford an armed bodyguard.
@@Rectitude4U those are the left wing activist judges. This is exactly why President Trump's 3 appointments were absolutely critical to preserving the civil liberties of the individual, here in the United States. Without those 3 appointments, and taking Garland's blatant violations of the United States Constitution and the restrictions it places on government, into consideration? We would be under martial law, right now by illegitimate CCP intelligence agency asset Biden and his illegitimate regime, with the democrat ghestapo, aka the federal Department of Justice and clandestine agencies, going door to door, disarming people
No they're not. They are political appointees.
@@Rectitude4U hypotheticals are extremely important in law and philosophy. Those examples are made by the left leaning justices, one of which thought Heller was incorrectly decided. The question is what other hypotheticals justices think up, which I believe they could address examples like the NJ case where they denied a girl being stalked who was killed later on
What’s so hard to understand about “shall not be infringed”
It's obvious she can not defend the indefensible and she did a terrible job.
So who won? And what are they going to do? If it’s still on going when is the next date? And when are they gonna make a ruling?
Love how the keep distracting him while he is in the middle of answering their last statement.... distract distract distract is their only tactic...
Shall not be infringed denies the local, state, federal, judicial governments from regulating anything to do with arms(weapons),a gun is a arm.
13:15 Shooting a deer or a rabbit has its problems? WHAT? 13:30 How obtuse. How did Bryer make it to the USSC?
breyer: san francisco
kagan: nyc
sotomayor: nyc
enough said
Who cc in the woods? It's open carry! These knuckleheads never been to the woods.
Sensitive places conversation is a separate conversation from ability to conceal carry.
This woman (arguing against) really doesn't have a valid arguement.....She is embarrassingly naive and/or ignorant of what goes on in society in every day life.
I love these sessions
Dred Scott v Sanford answered this question
I hope they get a favorable decision!
When People fear their government that is called Tyranny, when the Government fears its people, it’s called Liberty… President Thomas Jefferson
A statement made by Thomas Jefferson in a letter is not binding law.
@@markpkessinger Nobody said it was Francis.
@@bcarss1970 -- Right, so that renders the comment irrelevant to the discussion.
@@markpkessinger yes it is … 2nd Amendment…..Ny law is going down in flames…finally
@Na'keem Syko -- What is relevant to matters of law is not a matter of anyone';s ego.
No one KNOWS when they will need a gun for Self-defense. The assaulter picks the time of the attack so you need to carry a gun at all times since you never know when an attack will happen.
If we don't have the right to carry a gun outside the home. Given Heller and the right to self-defense, you must conclude we have the right to have our own police officer. Just like SCOTUS, POTUS and others have.
@@EthosAtheos Sad truth is a lady who was robbed, raped and beaten tried to sue the local police since the cops were out gunned and took off running leaving the woman to her fiat. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the cops saying "Citizens ultimately have the duty of protecting themselves". That's right! Cops have NO legal obligation to risk their life to protect yours.
How can you legislate the right of an individual to defend themselves?
This comes down to a balance about which is more important, the safety of the public or the honor of the court and the rights of the people, because at this point these are the two opposite sides of the scale.
The only thing this fell short of was saying permitting is not constitutional. Having to ask for permission from the government to exercise is a down right vile act.
"On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823
Attorney for NY really just stated her state has significantly prevented gun violence in densely populated areas. The residents of the NYC would beg to differ. Oh and don’t forget a defunded police department too!
record chris wrey using comunication for violation voice
Shall not be infringed. End of sentence.
Permitting can't be allowed. There's no historical analogue to that
There is no right to hunt. There is a right to self defense. Hunting isnt a 2a issue.
Well, it been a year, how things go in that time with the gun debate?
How have the conditions of protection and public surveillance of citizens changed since the ratification of the second amendment on December 17, 1791?
They are denying people for a lot of reasons like them not being able to verify all of the information regarding chacter references which has nothing to do with being competent and or free from criminal conviction.
This conversation among the Justices is a joke… “the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.” Period.
The Closing Argument Very Much Put It All Very CLEAR!!!
➡️🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲⬅️
Yes the cook, the waitress, the Doorman, the dishwasher, the cab driver they need concealed carry protection.
Why look pre-1960's at the treatment of any right? The Bill of Rights wasn't meaningfully applied to scrutinize the constitutionality of state laws prior to that time. States passed all kinds of unconstitutional laws well into the twentieth century. None of the Bill of Rights applied to States prior to the enactment of 14th Amendment. The Bill of Rights was initially only applicable to the Federal Government. Why look at two hundred year old laws in TX, TN, WV etc.? Who knows why they were enacted and how they were enforced. Most weapons from the early nineteenth century weren't concealable. Only gamblers, highwaymen, prostitutes and scoundrels carried tiny, little concealed weapons (see my point?) A lot of those states allowed owning people and still do on paper. States all over this country passed laws that denied voting rights, free speech, assembly, due process etc... Why not look at the carry laws of today and the evolution of the general expansion of rights that trended under the fourteenth amendment until recent times? The Second Amendment grants a clear right, that right can't be subject to the whims and prejudices of a random, petty bureaucrat. The State has to show that a qualified subject is unfit to carry and provide for a meaningful process when the right is denied. Besides, if New York already has 90,000 permits, what is a few more going to hurt?
Well stated, when they only allow the permitting of 1% of NYC that doesn't seem like the people's rights are being upheld. Sounds like discrimination based on class.
@@IronskullGM Even retired NYC cops can’t carry firearms in NYC. You’re required to carry for 20 years but one you punch out that last time, you’re no longer allowed to carry.
@@deebee4575 that's just wrong. I have a friend who was retired special forces and a retired federal firearms instructor for the DOJ and couldn't get licensed in NYC. It's definately a privlege there between who you know and how wealthy you are.
It's ridiculous that the Bill of Rights was only applicable to the federal government. What good is recognition of a right if a state government can infringe it?
@@Anon54387 That’s false. That’s why this case is happening.
Why is the 2nd amendment up for debate? There should be no debate on our right to bear arms.
TROJAN HORSE: "Sensitive places"!!! Everywhere will be a sensitive place, including our homes!!!
Clement specifically brought that up that SCOTUS can not let NY deem places Sensitive that are just normal public areas. Hopefully they add that to their opinion or there will be more lawsuits coming with regards to that
1:13:13 An example of a right that is/was delegated to a locality to administer is obscenity, through the Roth Standard. Roth used a "contemporary community standard" to determine if something was obscene. A local jury would be required to use a contemporary community standard, which meant that local prosecutors would have to also, with the result being a different definition of obscenity in rural Oklahoma than in Times Square.
Denying someone the right to carry a concealed weapon is not an infringement on their Second Amendment right so long as they are still able to open carry.
Clarence Thomas is a national treasure!
I guess abc edited some of the good arguments since it's about a half hour short
THE MINISTRY OF INFORMATION HAS SPOKEN
The words/phrases, "in the home," "reasonable," "prohibited places/persons," "with approval of local authorities," "except places where prohibited by government," etc. are NOT found in the 2nd Amendment!!! The Injunctive phrase, "shall not be infringed," however, IS and is translated by Black's Law, 5th Ed., as "ABSOLUTELY FORBIDDEN to violate." I'd say it's an absolute right based on that; and, that its inclusion in the BoRs/Constitution, "necessarily takes it off the legislative table" (e.g. Zero governmental Subject Matter Jurisdiction).
Criminals will disregard any gun regulations anyways, so to restrict the noncriminal law -abiding citizens from carrying is idiotic. These same law-abiding citizens if carrying can prevent a mass shooting or will deter criminals from their evil intent.
Man listening to liberal side of the argument is hilarious they lack strong counter argument in their 1st impressions of this case.
I have an idea, look at gun laws in other Countries that don't have mass shootings or more children dying from guns than car accidents (2022)
I can't believe they have not released there decision on this they should not be paid until they do it's too important
Respondent STRUGGLED
Presumptively lawful, by definition, denotes the possibility of presumptively unlawful!!!