>> Bill: WE HAVE ONE DECISION
HANDED DOWN BY THE U.S. SUPREME
COURT DEALING WITH GUNS IN
AMERICA.
IT IS A 6-3 RULING.
WE HAVEN’T SEEN THE OPINION
YET, DANA.
AT ISSUE HERE WAS NEW YORK
STATE RIFLE AND PISTOL VERSUS
BREW-IN.
THE BIGGEST GUN CONTROL CASE
THE COURT HAS HAD IN 14 YEARS.
AT ISSUE TWO GUN OWNERS IN NEW
YORK HAD THEIR APPLICATIONS
DENIED BASED ON A FAILURE TO
SHOW WHAT IS CONSIDERED A
PROPER CAUSE.
IN STATES LIKE NEW YORK TO
CARRY A CONCEALED WEAPON
OUTSIDE OF THE HOME, YOU NEED
SPECIAL PERMISSION TO DO THAT
AND THESE MEN WERE ARGUING IT
IS A VIOLATION OF SECOND
AMENDMENT RIGHTS.
SO THE COURT RULES, HERE WE GO
NOW.
THE COURT HOLDS THAT NEW YORK’S
PROPER CAUSE REQUIREMENT TO
OBTAIN A CONCEALED CARRY
LICENSE VIOLATES THE
CONSTITUTION BY PREVENTING
LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS WITH
ORDINARY SELF-DEFENSE NEEDS
FROM EXERCISING THEIR SECOND
AMENDMENT RIGHT TO KEEP AND
BEAR ARMS IN PUBLIC FOR
SELF-DEFENSE.
THAT’S THE RULING 6-3.
IT WILL AFFECT STATES LIKE NEW
YORK AND ABOUT SEVEN OTHERS
THAT HAD SIMILAR RESTRICTIVE
RULES.
>> Dana: THIS IS A SIGNIFICANT
BIG CASE.
I KNOW WE HAVE JONATHAN TURLEY
AND SHANNON BREAM WITH US.
WE’LL GET THEM HERE IN A MOMENT.
LET ME SET UP ONE THING AND
ANDY MCCARTHY.
IT’S 6-3.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT HAPPENED
IN THIS CASE AND JONATHAN MAYBE
GO TO YOUR FIRST IF YOU ARE
ABLE IS THAT THE GUN RIGHTS
ACTIVISTS, ONCE THEY STARTED
DOWN THIS ROAD, THEY MIGHT HAVE
REALIZED AS SOME POINT AS I
REMEMBER READING THEY MIGHT
HAVE ACTUALLY HURT THEIR CAUSE
HERE BECAUSE THIS IS NOW --
THIS DECISION KIND OF -- FOR
THE GUN RIGHTS PEOPLE IT
BACKFIRED.
FOR PEOPLE WANTING PEOPLE TO
HAVE MORE SELF-DEFENSE RIGHTS,
IT SEEMS THAT THEY HAVE WON IN
THIS SUPREME COURT CASE?
>> THEY HAVE WON AND IT IS AN
INTERESTING POINT THAT YOU MAKE.
NEW YORK HAS BEEN THE GIFT THAT
KEEPS ON GIVING FOR GUN RIGHTS
ADVOCATES.
THEY LIKE D.C. AND CHICAGO HAVE
LOST MAJOR CASES BEFORE THE
SUPREME COURT.
THIS WAS A CASE THAT MANY OF US
WROTE ON WHEN IT WAS IN THE
LOWER COURT.
I THOUGHT THAT IT WOULD RESULT,
AS IT DID TODAY.
THIS WAS A CASE THAT CLEARLY
WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL UNDER THE
CONTROLLING AUTHORITY OF HELLER.
AND WHAT YOU HAVE IN
JURISDICTIONS LIKE NEW YORK IS
A VERY STRONG GUN CONTROL
EFFORT BUT THEY OFTEN PRODUCE
CASES THAT QUITE FRANKLY ARE
WELCOMED BY MANY GUN RIGHTS
ADVOCATES BECAUSE YOU CAN
CREATE IN THEIR VIEW IT WAS A
BAD CASE TO MAKE SOME GOOD LAW.
AND THEY DID SO.
THIS IS A 6-3 DECISION.
YOU HAVE JUSTICE THOMAS LOOKING
AT THE HISTORY OF THE SECOND
AMENDMENT, LOOKING AT THE
HOLDING IN HELLER AND SAYING
THAT THE ANSWER IS CLEAR THAT
YOU CANNOT IMPOSE THIS BURDEN
ON GUN OWNERS TO BE ABLE TO
CARRY A CONCEALED WEAPON.
>> Bill: STAND BY HERE.
YOU AND ANDY MCCARTHY AND
SHANNON BREAM ARE READING
THROUGH THE OPINION RIGHT NOW.
SHANNON, I WANT TO GO TO YOU.
IN MAJOR RULING FOR GUN RIGHTS
THE SUPREME COURT SIDED WITH
THESE TWO GUN OWNERS IN NEW
YORK SAYING THAT THEY ARE
STRIKING DOWN THE RESTRICTIVE
GUN LAW IN NEW YORK STATE.
SHANNON, TO YOU, WHAT DO YOU
READ?
>> WHAT HAD HAPPENED IS THESE
TWO GUN OWNERS WERE LOOKING FOR
THE OPPORTUNITY TO CARRY A
CONCEALED WEAPON.
THEY HAD OTHER LICENSES IN
OTHER THINGS THAT ALLOWED THEM
TO CARRY THEIR GUNS FOR
SPECIFIC REASONS BUT SAID I
WANT TO CARRY ONE.
I THINK IT IS MY CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHT.
IN NEW YORK YOU HAD TO HAVE A
SPECIAL SHOWING.
YOU HAD TO HAVE A REASON TO SAY
THAT YOU HAD A JUSTIFICATION
FOR CARRYING A GUN IN A
CONCEALED WAY.
THEY SAID THERE SHOULDN’T BE
THOSE RESTRICTIONS IF I’M A
LAW-ABIDING CITIZEN.
I SHOULD BE ABLE TO CARRY.
IN STRIKING DOWN THE NEW YORK
LAW AND SENDING THE CASE DOWN
HERE IS WHAT JUSTICE THOMAS
SAID.
A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO BEAR
ARMS IN PUBLIC FOR SELF-DEFENSE
IS NOT A SECOND CLASS RIGHT
SUBJECT TO AN ENTIRELY
DIFFERENT BODY OF RULES THAN
THE OTHER BILL OF RIGHTS
GUARANTEES.
HE USED THIS LANGUAGE BEFORE
TALKING ABOUT THE FACT THAT HE
THOUGHT THE SECOND AMENDMENT
WAS IN SOME CASES BEING TREATED
AS A SECOND CLASS RIGHT.
HE GOES ON TO SAY WE KNOW OF NO
OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT THAT
AN INDIVIDUAL MAY EXERCISE ONLY
AFTER DEMONSTRATING TO
GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS SOME
SPECIAL NEED.
THAT IS NOT HOW THE FIRST
AMENDMENT WORKS WHEN IT COMES
TO UNPOPULAR SPEECH OR THE FREE
EXERCISE OF RELIGION AND NOT
HOW THE SIXTH AMENDMENTS AND
NOT HOW THE SECOND AMENDMENT
WORKS WHEN IT COMES TO PUBLIC
CARRY FOR SELF-DEFENSE.
THE NEW YORK PROPER CAUSE AND
SPECIAL SHOWING YOU HAVE TO
HAVE TO CARRY A GUN VIOLATES
THE 14th AMENDMENT AND PREVENTS
LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS WITH
ORDINARY SELF-DEFENSE NEEDS
FROM EXERCISING THEIR RIGHT TO
KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. THE DEFENSE IS WRITTEN BY
THE DEFENSE IS WRITTEN BY
JUSTICE BREYER JOINED BY
JUSTICE --
>> HE SAYS THE GOVERNMENT HAS
TO SHOW A GUN REGULATION IS
CONSISTENT WITH THIS NATION’S
HISTORICAL TRADITION OF FIREARM
REGULATION THAT GOES RIGHT TO
THE SECOND AMENDMENT.
TO ANDY MCCARTHY NOW AND YOUR
REACTION, ANDY.
>> WELL, I THINK THIS IS A
FAITHFUL RENDITION OF WHAT THE
SECOND AMENDMENT IS, THE MOST
MISUNDERSTOOD AMENDMENT IN OUR
PUBLIC DISCOURSE, I THINK, BILL.
THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS NOT A
RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS SO MUCH AS
IT IS AN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT THAT
THERE IS A PRE-EXISTING RIGHT
TO BEAR ARMS THAT EXISTED AND
WAS DERIVED FROM NATURAL RIGHTS
AT THE TIME THE CONSTITUTION
WAS RATIFIED.
SO IT IS NOT A POSITIVE GRANT
OF A RIGHT, IT IS AN
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF A RIGHT THAT
ALREADY EXISTED AND A
PROHIBITION ON GOVERNMENT FROM
REGULATING THAT RIGHT.
SO IF YOU ARE WITHIN THE RIGHT
TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS AS IT WAS
UNDERSTOOD, THE IDEA IS NOT THE
GOVERNMENT’S DOING YOU A FAVOR
AND ALLOWING YOU TO DEFEND
YOURSELF, THE POINT OF THE
RIGHT IS TO LIMIT THE ABILITY
OF GOVERNMENT TO DISARM THE
PUBLIC IN TERMS OF THAT AND
WHAT THE SECOND AMENDMENT
PROTECTS.
SO OUR DISCOURSE SEEMS TO
PRESUME THAT GOVERNMENT HAS A
RIGHT TO REGULATE AS LONG AS IT
IS REASONABLE AND WHAT THE
CONSTITUTION SAYS IS NO, YOU
HAVE A RIGHT TO DEFEND YOURSELF
AND THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS A
LIMITATION ON THE GOVERNMENT,
NOT A LIMITATION ON YOU.
>> Dana: INTERESTINGLY IN
LOOKING AT THIS, JONATHAN, A
LITTLE BIT OF A TWO-PART
QUESTION.
THIS IS SEISMIC FOR A LOT OF
REASONS ESPECIALLY BECAUSE IT
IS NOT JUST NEW YORK.
THESE ARE THE OTHER STATES
WHERE IT WOULD HAVE AN EFFECT.
CALIFORNIA, DELAWARE, HAWAII,
MARYLAND, MASSACHUSETTS, NEW
JERSEY, AND RHODE ISLAND.
AND WHEN YOU HAVE A CASE LIKE
THIS THAT HAS SUCH A SEISMIC
IMPACT, HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE
FOR THOSE OTHER STATES OR EVEN
NEW YORK TO CHANGE ITS RULES?
AS OF TODAY DOES IT CHANGE?
>> THOSE ARE PRESUMPTIVELY
UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND THEY
SHOULD BE CHANGED.
THE QUESTION IS, THEY REALLY
CAN’T BE ENFORCED AS TOW
CONTRADICT THIS DECISION.
THIS IS A MOMENTOUS DECISION
FOR GUN RIGHTS ADVOCATES AND
FOR THE SECOND AMENDMENT.
IT HAS ALL OF THE ELEMENTS THAT
YOU OFTEN ASSOCIATE WITH A
THOMAS OPINION.
HE BRINGS UP ORIGINALIST
HISTORY SWATTING BACK ARGUMENTS
FROM LATER IN -- AFTER THE
RATIFICATION AS LARGELY
IRRELEVANT TO UNDERSTAND THE
INTENT BEHIND THE SECOND
AMENDMENT BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY
THE COURT REJECTS A TWO-PART
TEST FOR LOOKING AT LIMITATIONS
ON GUN RIGHTS AND STRESSES YOU
NEED TO PRESUME THAT PEOPLE
HAVE A RIGHT TO EXERCISE
INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS LIKE GUN
POSSESSION.
AND THAT MEANS THAT YOU CAN’T
PUT THE THUMB ON THE SCALE AS
NEW YORK DID HERE TO SHOW US
THAT YOU HAVE PROPER CAUSE,
INCLUDING MORAL STANDING, TO
HAVE A GUN.
AND WHAT THE COURT REALLY
HAMMERS AT IS THAT THIS WOULD
NOT BE TOLERATED WITH OTHER
RIGHTS IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS
AND THERE IS A TENDENCY AMONG
MANY -- AMONG SOME JUDGES AND
MANY LEGAL ANALYSTS TO TREAT
THE SECOND AMENDMENT AS
SOMETHING LESS THAN AN
INDIVIDUAL RIGHT.
AND WHAT JUSTICE THOMAS IS
SAYING HERE IS THAT THIS IS AN
INDIVIDUAL RIGHT WITH THE OTHER
RIGHTS IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS.
AND WE DON’T LIKE SHIFTING THE
BURDEN TO PEOPLE TO SAY PROVE
YOU NEED TO USE THIS RIGHT.
>> Bill: BACK TO SHANNON AND
ANDY ON THIS.
THIS FIRST CASE REGARDING GUNS
OF SIGNIFICANCE BEFORE THE
COURT IN 14 YEARS.
AND SHANNON, IN 2008 THEY RULED
THAT THE SECOND AMENDMENT
GUARANTEED INDIVIDUALS THE
RIGHT TO HAVE A GUN AT HOME FOR
SELF-DEFENSE.
AND NOW THIS RULING ESSENTIALLY
ADDRESSES WHETHER THE
INDIVIDUAL CAN CARRY THE GUN
OUTSIDE THE HOME.
AND SHANNON, AFTER LIVING IN
NEW YORK FOR THE PAST 20 YEARS
I CAN TELL YOU FOR THOSE,
WHETHER THEY SUPPORT OR AGAINST
THE SECOND AMENDMENT, LIVING IN
NEW YORK, IF YOU WANTED TO GET
A GUN, IT WASN’T IMPOSSIBLE BUT
IT WAS PRETTY CLOSE TO IT.
>> YEAH, EXACTLY.
THAT’S AN ISSUE THAT THESE TWO
GUN OWNERS WHO DECIDED TO PUSH
FORWARD WITH THIS CASE SAID
THERE ARE THOSE WHO ARE WHETHER
THEY’RE LAWMAKERS, CELEBRITIES,
SPORTS STARS, WHATEVER THEY ARE.
THOSE FOLKS USUALLY HAVE THEIR
OWN SECURITY OR ABLE TO GET
THIS PARTICULAR CONCEALED CARRY
LICENSE SO THEY CAN PROTECT
THEMSELVES.
PART OF THE ARGUMENT IS WHY
SHOULD EVERYDAY AMERICAN
CITIZENS NOT HAVE THE SAME
RIGHT TO PROTECT THEMSELVES IF
THIS IS ABOUT SELF-DEFENSE.
NEW YORK DID PERMIT OTHER
LICENSING ALLOWED YOU TO
TRANSPORT GUNS FOR HUNTING AND
PRACTICE.
ONE SAID WE KNOW HOW TO HANDLE
GUNS SAFELY AND WHY CAN’T WE
CARRY A GUN FOR OUR OWN
PROTECTION?
THAT WAS DEFINITELY A BIG PART
OF THE ARGUMENT.
LOOKING AT THE DISSENT IT GOES
EXACTLY WHERE YOU THINK IT
WOULD.
IT BEGINS WITH A STATISTICS
ABOUT SHOOTINGS AND DEATHS BY
GUNS IN AMERICA WHERE THAT
TAKES US.
BUT THAT SEEMS TO BE THE
MAJORITY WHOLLY APART FROM
WHERE THEY ARE GOING IN THE
MAJORITY OPINION.
JUSTICE THOMAS HAS SAID IN THE
PAST THAT HE THOUGHT THE SECOND
AMENDMENT WAS BEING TREATED AS
A SECOND CLASS RIGHT.
FOR A LONG TIME THE COURT
HASN’T TAKEN A GUN CASE AND A
NUMBER OF GUN CASES HAVE
BUBBLED UP.
EVEN IN NOT TAKING THE CASES
THEY SAID THE FACT WE WON’T
ADDRESS THESE WE AREN’T
TREATING IT RIGHT LIKE OTHER
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.
IT IS TIME TO TAKE ONE OF THESE
CASES AND MAKE A DECISION.
6-3, A VERY BIG DECISION AND
COMES AT A TIME WHEN THIS
COUNTRY IS GRAPPLING WITH THE
DEBATES WITH HORRIFIC INCIDENTS
IN BUFFALO AND UVALDE AND NOW A
GUN BILL SITTING IN THE SENATE
AND COULD GET A VOTE TODAY.
>> Dana: I WAS THINKING ABOUT
THAT VOTE TODAY THAT COULD
HAPPEN AT ANY MOMENT.
SCHUMER, THE SENATE MAJORITY
LEADER, DOES PLAN TO CALL IT UP
AND THERE WILL BE 30 HOURS OF
DEBATE AND COULD BE VOTED ON
FINALLY TOMORROW.
ANDY, ONE THING I NOTED HERE IS
THAT IN THE DISSENT JUSTICE
BREYER REFERS TO UVALDE AND
BUFFALO AND I KNOW YOU HAVEN’T
HAD THE CHANCE TO READ 135
PAGES IN THREE MINUTES BUT
JUSTICE ALITO HAS A RETORT
REGARDING BUFFALO.
I ASSUME IT HAS TO DO WITH THE
RESPONSIBLE GUN OWNERS WHO CAN
LEGALLY CARRY A FIREARM.
THAT’S WHAT THIS SPECIFIC
SUPREME COURT CASE IS ABOUT.
>> YEAH.
I THINK THAT’S RIGHT.
I THINK CONSIDERING THAT PART
OF THE DISSENT AND PICKING UP
FROM WHAT SHANNON JUST SAID
ABOUT STATISTICS AND BRINGING
THE FACT PATTERN UP TO THE
MODERN DAY, I’M REMINDED OF
WHAT JUSTICE SCALIA SAID IN
HELLER, WHICH IS THAT LOOK, WE
HAVE THIS SECOND AMENDMENT
WHICH PROTECTS A PRE-EXISTING
RIGHT TO HAVE SELF-DEFENSE IN
THE FORM OF FIREARMS THAT ARE
IN COMMON USE.
NOW WE COULD AMEND THE SECOND
AMENDMENT.
WE COULD CHANGE IT SO THAT IT
WOULD ALLOW FIREARMS THAT ARE
EVEN BEYOND WHAT’S IN COMMON
USE, OR WE COULD AMEND IT AND
TAKE IT OUT OF THE CONSTITUTION.
BUT THE COURT’S OBLIGATION IS
TO GIVE EFFECT TO WHAT THE
SECOND AMENDMENT SAYS AS IT WAS
ORIGINALLY UNDERSTOOD WHEN IT
WAS ADOPTED.
SO ALL THIS STUFF ABOUT MODERN
CIRCUMSTANCES AND STATISTICS
AND WHAT I THINK THE COURT IS
SAYING IS FINE, AMEND THE
CONSTITUTION IF YOU ARE NOT
HAPPY WITH THE SECOND AMENDMENT
BUT OUR JOB IS TO GIVE EFFECT
TO WHAT THE SECOND AMENDMENT
SAYS AS IT WAS UNDERSTOOD WHEN
IT WAS ADOPTED.
>> Bill: THANKS TO ALL THREE OF
YOU FOR THE QUICK REACTION.
READING ONE MORE THING FROM
JUSTICE THOMAS’S DECISION
NOTHING IN THE SECOND AMENDMENT
DISTINGUISHES BETWEEN HOME AND
PUBLIC WITH RESPECT TO THE
RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS.
WHICH WAS THE QUESTION BEFORE
THE COURT.
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS VOTED