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