The sensitive places issue in New York Rifle

Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen . The issue is whether the Second Amendment right to “bear arms” can forbidden to everyone except persons who prove that they have an unusual need for self-defense. Based on the questions during argument, six Justices seemed skeptical that an enumerated right could be limited so that only a tiny percentage of the people can exercise it. A secondary question during argument was where lawful can be banned. The Supreme Court first addressed the issue in 2008 in District of Columbia v. Heller , when the Court stated that bearing arms could be prohibited “in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings.” In a VC post last week , I surveyed the legal history of sensitive places, and offered some thoughts on doctrinal development. Below, leading Second Amendment lawyer and scholar provides some post-argument analysis of sensitive places issues. Steve and I have coauthored several works, including Miller versus Texas: Police Violence, Race Relations, Capital Punishment, and Gun-toting in Texas in the Nineteenth Century—and Today , 9 Journal of Law and Policy 737 (2001). For clarity, I am the research director of the Independence Institute , a think tank in Denver. Steve is a senior fellow at the Independent Institute , a think tank in Oakland. ——————————————————————————————————————— by Stephen Halbrook A surprising issue dominated Paul Clement’s time at the lectern on November 3 in New York State Rifle & […]

Click here to view original web page at The sensitive places issue in New York Rifle

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.