New York Gun Law Faces the Supreme Court

On today’s episode, David and Sarah are on the road at the Howard H. Baker ...

By and
29

On today’s episode, David and Sarah are on the road at the Howard H. Baker Jr. Center for Public Policy on the campus of the University of Tennessee. Before a live audience they discuss Supreme Court oral arguments in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, a case challenging a New York law that places strict limits on carrying guns outside the home. Plus, David and Sarah share more thoughts on the Texas abortion law case before the Court, and they take audience questions.

By and
Comments (29)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    PaulH

    One thing that I am unclear on is how the litigation in the Texas heartbeat case will play out assuming the SC denies the federal government's attempt to enjoin it. If the law remains on the books, presumably someone will eventually sue someone else for violating the law. As that case proceeds, a court will eventually declare the law unconstitutional and dismiss the case. Appeals from the decision will be made, but there is really no doubt that the law is unconstitutional (under current SC abortion precedent). Is that the end of the matter? Is the law at that point of dead letter? Or is there some way that the law could be continued to use to harass others?

    I don't like the approach of the Texas law but I am less worried about it if it can eventually be nullified by the courts than if it somehow remains a sword hanging over the state.

    I have listened to Sarah and David discuss this topic many times, but I don't think they have ever explained how they see this issue being resolved.

    Collapse
  2. Lieseandrew

    Sarah's comment about not wanting to tell a little lie because that wasn't the kind of person she wanted to be reminded me of philosopher Agnes Callard's Econtalk episode on Aspiration:

    "So, one of them is just, it reminds me of a colleague of mine who, like, once told me one of her--or maybe I even heard it second hand or through someone else, third hand. One of the ways she talks to her students about, like, not cheating, like, 'Why shouldn't you cheat on a test?,' say. It's not because you'll be punished. It's because if you cheat you'll be a cheater and you don't want to be a cheater."

    https://www.econtalk.org/agnes-callard-on-aspiration/

    Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    Kyle Munyon

    David and Sarah

    Can you update us on the Rittenhouse case in an upcoming podcast? Doesn’t seem like a slam dunk for the prosecution.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photocircle-angle-nib
      David French vertical-nib Author

      Good thought. It was never a slam dunk for the prosecution!

      Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    Dr. Livesey

    I said this in the Morning Dispatch comments section, and I'll repeat it here: This was the liveliest, funniest and sharpest episode that I can recall listening to (there may have been a small number that were better, but I just can't remember them).

    David and Sarah, I hope you do this kind of thing again and again, however much you can. It's got to be a lot more difficult than your regular podcasts, and I guess there's always some chance that an idiot in the audience will get up and say something intentionally rude, but a law school audience may be better behaved than that. The Dispatch has great podcasts, and yet this one stood out.

    Also, I was really pleased to hear the quick descriptions of the Supreme Court case names.

    Collapse
  5. Airish

    I've listened to the past two podcasts and heard Sarah comment variously on Paul Clement and his ease in arguing before the Court and Neil Gorsuch's "grouchiness." I wanted to relate a story she should find interesting. I attended the oral arguments in Seila Law v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau at which Paul Clement was specifically invited by the Court to argue the issue of the CFPB's constitutionality. During his argument, Clement made a snarky reference to another advocate's argument, at which point Gorsuch basically tore him a new one for his "disrespectful" comments. I was shocked because like Sarah, I was well aware of Clement's exalted status among Court advocates. Gorsuch tore into him like an old-school headmaster chewing out an smartass freshman. The attendees were all "wow" and I'm sure the other justices were as well. I guess Paul has snapped back from that.

    I've actually met Clement and he is a genuinely smart and personable guy and I would have preferred that he had been nominated for Kennedy's seat instead of Kavanaugh - but for some reason, he wasn't on the FedSoc SCOTUS "list," so I have to guess that someone important has an issue with him. I'm sure the left would have attacked him for representing so many clients they probably hate and would have no problem conflating Clement's views with those of his "bad" clients. That could be the reason he wasn't on the list, but I doubt it. If anyone knows, would be interesting in learning the reason for this.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      PaulH

      I think one of the criteria for being on the SCOTUS list was a demonstrated record (via either publications or decisions) that one was a solid conservative. As an advocate, Clements probably has not developed that record. So whatever people may think they know about his judicial philosophy, there would be a risk that he would be another Souter. With so many well credentialed and well documented conservatives around, Clements would just not make the cut.

      Collapse
  6. Alibrarian

    I live in Knoxville!! Wish I had known y'all were coming...sniff, sniff.

    Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    Klw.Howard

    Regarding the question to David and Sarah about how they held onto their integrity in the current climate:

    My Catholic parish is pretty conservative, and a lot of my friends have become Trumpy and prone to conspiracy thinking. That, combined with the lockdown, has left me feeling a bit isolated, to the point of its affecting my faith. (You don’t realize how much you rely on community until it goes away.)

    I was talking to a priest about it last weekend, and he said: “Just concentrate on being a person of integrity, and don’t worry about what other people think.” Which is pretty simple and obvious, but it gave me the focus that I’d been needing.

    I appreciated hearing David and Sarah say the same thing. Thanks.

    Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    T.K. Small

    This was a fun conversation! Perhaps this act could be taken on the road? If there is an event in or near NYC, count me in…

    Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    Coolidge's Burner

    Ehh gotta say...as a current student at Anywhere Else Law School, I *very much* disagree with Sarah's rejection of the importance of "law school diversity" on the Court (and clerkships). My own school just got its first Supreme Court clerk since the late '70s, and you'd think President Biden just nominated an alum to the newly-created 10th seat. Don't underestimate the signal those spots send to to aspiring legal minds!

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photocircle-angle-nib
      Sarah Isgur vertical-nib Author

      Actually, I feel very strongly in law clerk diversity of that kind. I just don't for justices bc I don't think it would provide that much diversity of thought. But what do I know?!

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Coolidge's Burner

        Sorry! I didn't mean to assume re clerkships. I just meant that ACB's status as a Notre Dame alumna was well-noticed by us! But I acknowledge that the upper echelons of any profession are typically concentrated among certain schools.

        Collapse
  10. Avatar photo
    BillAZ

    When I walk out the door I'm not bearing arms but I may be carrying a firearm. When I walk out of a barracks I'm "bearing arms". Is this a distinction in law?

    Collapse
Load More