Legal history. Joseph earned his ba degree magnacum laude from Rice University , masters degree from cambridge and a jd degree yale school and by the way, youre both of the people we had last week although he didnt take any courses from them. Joseph helps the briefings for the Landmark Supreme CourtDistrict Of Columbia versus eller in 2008. The District Of Columbia firearms control regulation act of 1975 required among other things that all firearms the quote, unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock. It also restricted residents from owning handguns except those registered prior to the enactment of the law. And the 5 to 4 decision the Supreme Court that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia. And use that arm for traditionally normal purposes such as selfdefense within a home. Unfortunately joseph was on the wrong side of that decision. I considered erin murphy, a partner and litigator with the Washington Dc Law Firm kirkland and ellis. He earned a ba degree from Northwestern University and a jd degree magna cum laude from Georgetown University law center. Erins court for chief Justice John Roberts and has argued for cases before the Supreme Court. In her first Supreme Court case mccutchen versus sec, the campaignfinance case brought by the Republican National committee allergy individual aggregate campaignfinance limits here and one. She has also argued several cases beforethe federal appeals courts , and one she challenged the city of sunnyvale california and Second Amendment challenge. In this case the night Us Circuit Court of appeals upheld the city of sunnyvales law restricting the highcapacity gun magazines. It rejected arguments that groups such as the National Rifle association which intended the restrictions are unconstitutional and undermined the owners right to protect our homes as was established in 2008 heller versus dc case. That case has now been usurped by California Law but isstill been fully decided. Our moderator today is john darby, john is a professor at the franklin peers will of law at the university of New Hampshire. He earned an 80 degree from harvard and a jd ensemble university. He is also a mediator and arbitrator and was selected by his peers as mediator of the year in both 2014 and 2017. John is a founding director of the nationally acclaimed daniel webster, honors program, a collaboration between you and a school a lot and the New HampshireSupreme Court and New Hampshire bar association. Students are accepted into this Program Prior to their second year of law school and discover percent takes to succeed in todays legal marketplace. They hone their skills in simulated and real settings. Counseling clients, working practicing lawyers, taking depositions, appearing for justice etc. Students pass a variance of the New Hampshire bar exam during the last two years and are sworn into the New Hampshire bar the day before graduation. So let me ask that our speakers and moderator come on stage. [applause] the morning. Its so nice to see all of you here for this debate. As you know we have two very distinguished lawyers to participate at the highest levels when it comes to interpreting the Second Amendment. In fact, they have both recently fired greece as you heard with the supremecourt case that raises this very topic. Today going to debate the issue of how courts should go about interpreting the Second Amendment. With the respect to the individual right to keep and bear arms a right which was confirmed by the Supreme Court as recently as 2008. This will be a constitutional rather than a Public Policy debate. The socalled gun debate has become so prominent in the United States that many people probably assume the issue has been raising since the birth of our nation. In fact, until the 1960s, the Second Amendment was barely discussed in the court that all area so let me give you a brief overview sort of the zone for what theyre going to be speaking about today. In the 1960s, bobby seal and huey newton started the black panthers in oakland california. You can add some Legal Training and took the position that the Second Amendment gaveindividuals the right to bear arms. In public, which they and their fellow black panthers began to do. This created a stir to say the least. And shortly thereafter California Legislature passed a law restricting the possession and use of weapons in public places. Federal restrictions and new laws in other states followed and this energized gun owners and libertarians felt that the government was infringing on their Constitutional Rights and as you know, the nra became quite livable, particularly since the 1970s. When the gun debate began, the major debate was whether the Second Amendment is limited to militia related people, arms and activities or whether as the black panthers and the nra claimed, includes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Disconnected from any actual or potential service in an organized militia. This question was answered. By the Supreme Court in 2008 in the case you heard referred to call the District Of Columbia versus heller. The Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment does include an individual right at least to the extent of keeping and using handguns in the whole. Though the Second Amendment is not limited to the organized militia. But heller also makes it clear that gun control is not categorically unconstitutional. So another thing we know is that the right to keep and bear arms like all other things, like all other rights is subject to regulation. Having said theres an individual right just as silly as majority opinion went on to say, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on the longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill or lost for getting the carrying of firearms and sensitive places such as schools and government buildings or where laws imposing conditions on the commercial sale of arms. With the individual rights reading resolved, the question for the Second Amendment now as for most Constitutional Rights is what kind of regulations are permissible. Over the past 10 years and in more than 1000 cases, that has been the question that courts have struggled to answer. Until recently, the Supreme Courts as satan out of that debate. Though as we will talk about, the justices agreed to hear a new york case that has the potential to change everything. And that is the case most recently which our speakers have filed briefs in. Erin murphy is counsel forthe petitioners in that case. Joseph blocher has filed a friend of the court case in support of either side but before we get into the details of that, id like to start with a broader question both erin and joseph. The Supreme Court has said that the Second Amendment includes an individual right, but it is not unqualified and some restrictions are permissible. Given that how should courts determine which gun regulations are constitutional . Erin . Good morning and thank you for having me here. Its great to be in misery, i havent been up to this part of the country before given the position that i will be taking in discussing these issues its a delight to be in a state that continues to respect and protect Second Amendment rights. Thats something were always looking for in all of these cases and all of these states where i litigate. As john mentioned ive been involved in many cases and many of the cases that will talk about have litigated these cases on the side, and all the cases ive been involved in on the side of advocating in favor of Second Amendment rights and challenging restrictions that have been passed by states and municipalities and in a few cases the United States and its been an interesting and hope are certainly a challenging area to litigate over the past 10 years because weve seen on many jurisdictions that continue to pass extremely aggressive warrants that really dont seem consistent with the notion that the Supreme Court has recognized the Second Amendment is an individual and fundamental constitutional right. Thats certainly not true of all jurisdictions. It actually most states well over 80 percent of the states protect the rights not just possess a firearm in the home but also to carry a rifle, many states through licensing to carry a firearm, many states through licensing regimes where basically any lawabiding citizen is going to be able to obtain a right to carry a firearm most of the state of the country have been protected and continued to be protected of the right that the Second Amendment protects but notwithstanding the fact that its been 10 years since the Supreme Court said that this is in fact an individual right, we continue to see a small number of jurisdictions and unfortunately jurisdictions have an extremely Large Population and a cup for a large portion of the country, even though there are a smaller number of jurisdictions that have responded to heller by instead of ensuring protection of Second Amendment rights, passing ever increasingly more aggressive and constraining restrictions on the rights to keep and bear arms. One great example of this has been the city of chicago. If you go back to the heller case itself, heller was about whether you can have a ban on the possession of handguns and the Supreme Court held that the District Of Columbias ban on possession of handguns was unconstitutional. The condo had in place a nearly identical than on possession of handguns. Instead of acknowledging that under hellers ban was clearly not unconstitutional, chicago continued to defend it in chicago continued to defend it arguing the Second Amendment doesnt apply at all to state and municipalities. Pretty much every other individual Constitutional Rights whether actually enumerated in the bill of rights or recognized by the courts through other documents like to process have been interpreted for decades to apply not just to the federal government but to state and municipalities. In chicago and a few other jurisdictions refuse to acknowledge that they were even bound at all by the Supreme Courts decision in heller and thats the Second Amendment as any impact on state and municipalities that was the b position that led the Supreme Court to its second decision which is also an at this point can be fatal in this area, the mcdonald versus city of chicago case in which the court rejected the position and said no, this is an individual fundamental states and municipalities must respect the same way the federal government will area but even then, chicago would not give. Chicago responded to that decision within a few days by passing an extremely aggressive system of licensing regimes or possessing a firearm and under that regime, chicago said in order to get a license to possess a firearm, you had to have had an hour of trading at a firing range. So far, so good. We all agree its absolutely important to understand how to use your firearm if youre going to possess one but at the same time chicago prohibited firing ranges within the city of chicago. Thereby making it illegal basically impossible to its own residents to obtain what chicago had said they needed to have in order to qualify under chicago law to have a firearm. That was struck down in the city of chicago, nonetheless continued to have aggressive laws. It was one of the first decisions have a complete absolute prohibition on carrying a firearm which is unconstitutional and continues to have extremely aggressive restrictions today including being among the jurisdictions that imposes a special discriminatory tax on firearms on obtaining a firearm. The Supreme Court has said for decades you cant impose special taxes on the exercises of the constitutional right. Sure if you got a general tax that applies to everything, and incidentally reaches a constitutional right, then the tax can apply there too but the Supreme Court has long made clear when it comes to the exercise of First Amendment rights, the exercise of freedom of religion, the court has said have a special tax that singles out the exercise of Constitutional Rights because that finds editor from exercising rights they possess, chicago and a couple other jurisdictions continue to have, special taxes that they impose for the knowledge purpose of trying to deter people from exercising all right at the Supreme Court has held the constitution protects. We seen the same thing from other jurisdictions, aggressive laws from places like san francisco, la, the District Of Columbia, new york and in new york city has been aggressive and its a new york city restriction that has led to this Supreme Court decided to hear a case this fall will mark the first case in about 10 years at the Supreme Court as in this area. New york city has a restriction, they have a licensing section that says that in order to possess a firearm within your own home you have to obtain a license and a license is known as a premises license and as a condition on the license it says remove the firearm on your home anywhere except authorized shooting, to authorized shooting range and even then you have to transport it unloaded and locked up in acontainer , lots from the ammunition but the catch beyond even that is new york city defines, authorized to include only shooting ranges within the boundaries of new york city itself. There are a grand total of ranges in the entire city of new york, a city of more than 8 Million People. And this results in a restriction that you cannot remove a handgun from the limits of the city of new york at all. This is an outlier restriction that we have to this point found no other jurisdiction in the entire country city or state pass. Theres no one else says you cannot remove your firearm from the limits of this city at all. Even just take next door to a shooting range that maybe 15 minutes away if youre talking about someone who lives at the edge of new york city and wants to go say its new jersey or long island. So these are the kind of restrictions we continue to see from jurisdictions that really dont want to accept the proposition that this is a fundamental individual right and instead continue to treat the right to keep and bear arms as if it were more of a privilege that people are allowed to exercise only the grace of the state and with the states permission and with all of the constraints at the state wants to put on it. Many of these restrictions have been challenged in court and normally, when youre dealing with the realm of restrictions on the exercise of Constitutional Rights, the basic rule is those restrictions are presumptively unconstitutional. Yes, it is not the case you cant regulate Constitutional Rights at all. Laws that pass muster, indeed in some respects on First Amendment rights and other rights but generally when you go to the courts, the courts to those right presumptively unconstitutional and its the governments burden to explain how they can be consistent with and dont unduly restrict the exercise of Constitutional Rights. Yet in this realm what we continue to see from the lower courts is that the lower courts are particularly interested in figuring out what the right protects. There instead fixated on that language that was mentioned at the outset here from heller that said not every law is unconstitutional in this area and essentially what they do is kind of treat that as the holding of heller. That instead of holdingthat heller protects the constitutional right, what heller really said is dont worry, you dont have to protect this right. So we see courts adopting extremely broad