defenders backing a major assault on gun control.
Here's that interview.
>> As folks know we have a 6, 3, conservative majority on the
Supreme Court over the course of the past well even less than
2 decades, the court has moved considerably to I guess one
could say the right in its sense of the constitutionality
of people carrying firearms in this country and just how
sacrosanct of a right that is. Joining me now is Allie missed
all he is the Justice. Writer for the nation magazine has
written a fascinating piece on a fascinating development,
asking the question why are public defenders, backing a
major assault on gun control Ellie welcome to the program
that I get your title at the nation. Right.
>> Well, I think the official one is justice correspondent
justice correspondent international man of mystery.
>> There you are
Elliott mentioned this before we started to record here that.
I found a piece to be fascinating. The exceptionally
well written in the the the issue itself is is fascinating.
Both on on legal sense and in a just sort of a societal sense
and also from a political standpoint which I want to
touch on as as well. But first, let's just start give people a
little bit of a primer of where we are in terms of the
the ascension I guess of the of the second Amendment that is
really taking place and I don't think people fully realize
appreciate this.
We're really about 15 years out from when
the right to carry an arm became individual right in this
country.
>> Yeah, so just to set the stage here in general over the
course of our lifetimes Supreme Court has gone further and
further and further to the hard right in terms of gun
liberation walk while the country as a whole has steadily
moved quite left it is toward supporting kind of reasonable
gun range, so you've got you know background checks for
instance, are you know polling at some of their highest level
ever while the court itself is moving further and further
right on this issue, the key here has been the ascension of
the nra's interpretation of the second. Now this is new it's
new in terms of like this was not how anybody talked about
second Amendment back in the 1960's, what's right. It was
really that was the if you go into our a history. There was a
revolt in Cincinnati and that was when the hardliners took
over the NRA from the inside out in the mid 70's, but this
new interpretation of the second Amendment started to get
you know get weights and that new interpretation which I
can't emphasize enough. It is not how the amendment was
interpreted constitutionally for the entirety of our history
was that the gun ownership is an individual personal right
that we get from the Constitution. So that we can
but then ourselves from criminals that is again new the
original second and it was thought to be something to
protect ourselves from the tyranny was thought to be
something too so that we could arm stable missions which were
you know I don't want to be controversial here. But state
much is just so happened to be critically important to putting
on slave revolts in the early country that's why the second
Amendment is there so that the militias, we're not going to be
controlled by the federal government, the anti slave
potentially federal government and could be still controlled
by the pro slave states so they can raise their militias and
put them or both that's why it's there folks
but from the 70's on the NRA has been pushing the individual
right to bear arms, individual right to bear arms, and that
got you know finally recognition from the Supreme
Court in D C versus Howard 2000 written by Antonin Scalia where
he created again, this is a will and allegedly Ridge was
jut where she created for the first time in American history,
a personal right to own a firearm for self-defense
and that is where the say the law is right now though we
there's a there's allegedly a constitutional right to own
weapons for self-defense and the current court where we are
kind of now what's to come to the 2020 away to now with the
current court is doing is expanding the zone of that
right away you can use that personal right for self-defense
ever further and further and further away from your hats.
The issue of the day the issue of the Supreme Court will take
up next term is whether or not the simple act of requiring
unlicensed gun license before you're allowed to take your gun
outside of your home and personally defend yourself in
the streets. If that's what you need to do whether even the
permitting requirement in a state like New York where this
case is brought whether or not that itself is unconstitutional
unconstitutional restriction on this new personal right to bear
arms. That's the case in front of the Supreme Court this term
and this piece that I'm that I wrote obvious talking about
both the you know who the kind of white rule interest that
brought this case they're called the New York state rifle
and pistol Association. And this this melding of these kind
of worldwide interest and can a more urban more ethnic of black
and brown interests who are now joined with those broken trust
towards trying to overturn literally New York state's per
inning loss and whether or not your state has the authority to
require gun.
>> And we should say just before we get into the
specifics of those of this case.
We should say that this is
starting with Heller there is an ongoing process like you say
to expand that circle in which you can leave your home with a
gun and
if there is any ability.
Municipalities of states federal government
to in any way put any type of restriction.
On that process of picking up my handgun.
Holden and up in the air walking outside weather,
maybe it's not to maybe it's not just a handgun, maybe it's
just like my little my use E and Stephan outside essentially
and waving it around and walking down the street and
it's gone
a belly Marge how Arya here's my use E.
>> And.
>> This process that we're engaged in is basically this
court.
Every time you know basically saying no you can't you can't
prevent them from having newsy as opposed to you know a single
boat bolt a rifle. You can prevent them from not waiting
around.
You can even require them. In this instance to have to
register or get a license. We're telling by an is just
like it's going to be just like. I don't coffee can.
And just this is designed to kill people and so.
This is an ongoing process this gets pretty close to the
endgame
doesn't it, I mean, like if you if you get rid of the ability
of New York state say you need a license to carry a gun.
I what's left. It's hard to imagine what gun regulation
>> Survives at this point right at the edge and hope you know
law.
ship of tanks are busy has made most likely no nukes but that's
probably under like control foot like that you probably can
Avenue because of the plateau de of not because of its
killing power under the score right. I will talk about that
like that it's just it becomes increasingly hard to imagine
the thing that the state is allowed to restrict if the
current conservatives on the Supreme Court and again there
are 6 of them have their way. And it's it it it.
Again I just can't emphasize how much they have changed the
nature of what the second Amendment is even supposed to