SCOTUS Weighs Second Amendment Showdown Before 2020

mass shootings in Dayton and El Paso. On his way to visit those cities this morning, President Trump said there's no political appetite for an assault weapons band, but legislation for background checks, it's a different story. There's a great appetite, and I've been a very strong appetite for background checks, and I think we could bring up background checks like we've never had before. And the Supreme Court is weighing a Second Amendment showdown for the first time in a decade.

Joining me is Bloomberg News Supreme Court reporter Greg store So. Greg. Back in January, the Justice Is said they would hear a challenge to New York City rules that limit where licensed handguns can be taken while locked in loaded. What happened June the cases about um whether you can take these guns outside the city limits to something like a target range, um to a second home. Uh, there's a group of residents sued and said it violates our Second

Amendment rights. After the Court agreed to hear the case, the city, under pressure for some from groups that were worried that they were going to get a ruling that would expand the Second Amendment, the city changed its rules. It essentially said, you can do all those things. You can take it to a shooting range or competition outside the city, you can take it to a second home. And now the city is trying to get the Supreme Court to drop the case, saying the people who sued

got everything they asked for. There's nothing left for you to decide. So why would the court take on a case on a law that's changed. Isn't it moot? Well that the argument is that it is moot. The Supreme Court, though in the past, has said if you volunteer, if we've already agreed to hear a case and you voluntarily change your behavior to try to make the case go away,

we're gonna be pretty skeptical of that. We don't want to have our ability to decide these big issues that are supposed to apply nationwide undermine by litigan, who's just worried about losing the case now that we've agreed to hear it. So there are some uh, there is some precedent that would uh support the idea that the Supreme Court will go ahead and rule. And our gun rights advocates so sure of themselves that the Supreme Court is going to expand gun rights across the country with this. Uh,

they are pretty confident. Uh the and in fact, folks on the other side, the people who are skeptical about the Second Amendment are are are quite worried about this case and would love to see it go way. Uh. You know, these rules are pretty strict, that people challenging them said, through the strictest in the in the nation. Uh. They don't, for example, Uh, let you um, you know, take it to a target range that might be closer to your home but just happens to be outside the

city limits. They say, it's really hard to justify those Whether that would really be an expansion of the Second Amendment is debatable, But given that the Supreme Court hasn't, as you said at the beginning, taking up a Second Amendment case in a decade, if the Court were to rule, it would be big just for that reason. And has the courts moved to a more conservative court in those ten years, would that make a difference. Yeah, it might

make a difference. The biggest change, as in a lot of areas, is probably with Justice Breck Kavanaugh replacing the retired Justice Anthony Kennedy. It seemed as though Kennedy was the swing vote on this issue, as he was in so many other areas. Um And just as kavanaughs record as a federal Appeals Court judge has been very much a strong supporter of the right to bear arms and

the Second Amendment. Uh So it may be that whatever happens with this case, we see a Supreme Court that is more eager to jump into the fray and expand Second Amendment rights. There's some irony here because the Supreme Court has been holding back on an even more explosive gun case, a New Jersey case, while they're considering the New York case. Yeah. And and there's a real possibility if the Court were to dismissed the New York case,

that it could take up the New Jersey case. That one involves not the right to transport a gun that's unloaded, and locked. But the right to carry a loaded weapon and New Jersey, like a number of other states, UH, sharply limits who can do that. It requires you to show some sort of special reason why you need to be able to carry a weapon with you in public. Lower courts, federal appeals courts are divided on that question. So UH, there's a very good chance that the Court

would agree to take that up. They may even agree to take it up after the New York case if they hang on to it. But if they get rid of the New York case UH in the next couple of months, it's possible they could hear the New Jersey

case during this upcoming term. So, Greg, for those of us who don't follow the court as closely as you do, explain why they'd hold one case while another one percolates through their system there as opposed to just taking them on when when they come up and when they think the time is right. Well, they occasionally will do that if they have two cases that have closely related issues,

but but basically the Court likes to move methodically. Usually they do, and if uh they've already taken a case that might affect how that second case comes out, then they can hang onto the second case, and once they decide the first case, just kick the second case back to the lower court and say, okay, now, reconsiderate after you've taken a look at this ruling in the first case. That's kind of a way where the Supreme Court doesn't have to decide everything itself. It can kick stuff back

down to the lower courts and let them decide. Now. If the Supreme Court does take or does continue to take the New York case, that would mean that a decision in this case would be in the heat of the presidential campaign. And as we've said many times before, Chief Justice Roberts likes to stay away from politics if you can, he does, He's going to have hard time

avoiding it in this upcoming term. They are an awful lot of issues, some of which we've talked about, some of which I'm sure we will uh down the road, that are going to be big political issues that the Court will be deciding uh next June or or thereabouts. Uh.

This would be one of those cases. It's possible, though, that this will not be your classic five for split only because uh, you know, folks, I talked to you on both sides of the case say that New York City, uh, you know, based on the courts Supreme courts earlier precedents, has an especially weak case here. So maybe that even a couple of the liberal justices will will agree to side with the residents. About about a minute here, Greg, what has the Supreme Court basically stayed away from the

Second Amendment? You know, goney issues for so long? For decade. It's a real mystery. Um, They've had many good opportunities. Generally they don't tell us why they've decided not to take something. But you know, yeah, I mean it may be that Justice Kennedy was the one holding them back. We don't know that for sure, but we may be finding out in the next year or two. All Right, Thanks so much, Gregg. That's Greg Store, Bloomberg News, Supreme

Court reporter and a disclaimer. Michael Bloomberg, the majority owner of Bloomberg LP, the parent company of Bloomberg News, is a donor to groups that support gun control, including every Town for Gun Safety. Thanks for listening to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can subscribe and listen to the show on Apple podcast, sound Cloud, and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcast. I'm June Grosso, This is Bloomberg, m