Post sir sherard. Thank you counsel, the case is submitted. After the oral argument, attorney spoke about the case on the Supreme Court steps. Leading off with paul clement, representing the new york state rifle and pistol association. My name is paul clement represented the petitioners in the Supreme Court today. I dont know if there will be questions from anybody but i wanted to quickly say that we are very gratified that the Supreme Court heard the arguments in todays case. This is a very important case. My clients have been litigating this case for over five years theyve been represented by a great team that goes well beyond me. Brian stapleton has been representing them from the very beginning of this litigation. The reason they filed this lawsuit five years ago was to try to vindicate their rights under the Second Amendment. Up until the point that the Supreme Court granted certiorari in this case, the city of new york had resisted their efforts to vindicate their rights in every turn and only when the Supreme Court granted the certiorari petition in this case did the city start to take efforts to try to recognize their rights. The court asked a lot of questions today about those continuing efforts by the city to try to make this case go away but they also asked very important questions about the merits that made clear that this is part and parcel of the kind of regulations that have no basis in text history or tradition and should not be upheld consistent with the Second Amendment so we are very hopeful that the court will decide this case on the merits and in favor of the petitioners but in all that we are very gratified we had our day in court to vindicate these important constitutional rights. With no questions i will leave it to others but there is the statement. Thank you. [silence] we will have remarks from leaders of every town for gun safety. Good morning everyone, my name is hannah shearer, and the litigation director at Giffords Law Center gibran gun violence. My name is spelled hannah shlast name aaer. Jonathan lowy Vice President legal at brady. Characters welcome a managing director of litigation at every town for gun safety. We just came from that oral argument. They were tough questions on both sides. We still hope and expect that the court will dismiss this case as moot because the plaintiffs have gotten all the relief they are seeking but it was also very clear today what is actually at stake in this case. Counsel for the state affiliate of the nra got up there and asked the court to declare that the Second Amendment protects our right to carry firearms and also to adopt a restricted and extreme test for deciding Second Amendment cases that would look only to history and tradition and not to Public Safety concerns. Thats why we are here today keeping a close eye on this case to make sure that we assert our right to be safe and show that the Second Amendment is perfectly consistent with gun safety laws like the sort that americans overwhelmingly have been demanding. John lowery with brady, we are optimistic that the court will not consider the merits of this case because there is no case or controversy and that if the court does consider the Second Amendment issue that the court recognizes the longstanding right of americans to enact the gun safety laws that they want and need to protect their communities and that protect our most fundamental right to live. Thank you. Characters well from every town. I think what the argument showed today is that its the petitioners who had the 11. 5 hour or inventing theories to try to keep a case that is moot, alive. I think the questions real a reveal that and we hope the court will see that this case is over, the petitioners got all the relief they actually requested in this case and what they are asking for now goes beyond what theyve ever asked for before. If the court reaches the merit as john said, we hope that the justices will reaffirm that there is no inconsistency between the Second Amendment and reasonable gun safety laws that we know save lives every day across this country. Thank you. Take any questions . Thank you. Thank you. [silence] am going to introduce james e johnson, the Corporation Counsel of the city of new york. The new york city chief legal officer. James e johnson. Good morning. My name is jim johnson, and the Corporation Counsel for the city of newark. That is the chief legal officer for the city of new york. We have just heard the argument in the new york state rifle association, boris versus the city of new york. Its a case we maintain since the very beginning since cher was granted it was moot we should not have been called into court today but we were. We were more than ably represented by rich jeering, the head of our appeals unit in the new york city Law Department. At issue in this case was the request by the plaintiffs by the petitioner sheer to carry their firearms out of their homes into certain firing ranges and including a competition outside new york. New york city and new york state actually gave them everything they had asked for before this argument. That was married very plain in this argument today. The case is moot it is a case that should not have gone forward to this point but in any event we are looking forward to the judgment of the court. We feel we had a very strong and powerful presence in the hearing today. We are grateful for not only riches work but that of the entire appeals unit in the Law Department and the support of jeff fisher and his team and we are fortunate today that the solicitor general of the state of new york also traveled down with us to be present at the argument. Can ask a question . One of the things mr. Dearing said was that the fact that the state of new york changed its law and that the city changed its regulations was not maneuvering as the other side. What he mean by that . Its a good judgment i think it was Justice Breyer that noted that when there are parties to an argument when there are parties abwhen there are parties to an argument and those parties resolve or settle disputes before the argument is reaches Supreme Court, the court should view that as a good thing and we view it as good government. What about the justice is concerned that the state and city laws dont apply to the hypotheticals that may arise . Is it up to those people to refile litigation for the hypotheticals that werent addressed by the laws . I will have rich answer that question. [laughter] why dont you go to the microphone. I wasnt really listening to that question. I think the point is the lawsuit was never about any of those hypotheticals. There are things that if folks want to explore they have to be explored to determine what those new laws mean and whether there is any constitutional claim that can be made about them. Its never been part of this case and we dont know enough really for even a claim like that to have been framed and litigated and decided now. [inaudible question] the problem with that is that they turn this into essentially an audit where they tried to take a very hypothetical they can imagine about the law. I imagine if that happened they would just be news hypotheticals. Thats the way legislation works and litigation works but its not appropriate to try to inject those hypotheticals into a dispute that was framed about something completely different. And now completely resolved. Its cold and wet and we are going to get out of the rain. Thanks very much. [laughter] very cold and wet. [inaudible background conversations] [laughter] [inaudible background conversations] say who you are, spell your name and look at them dont look at me. And chris brown and im the president of brady. Even if you survived this, this is just the first of what you can expect a lot of cases. Were you looking at and hoping for in this case and for the future . Certainly in this case we know that the new york statute has been mooted. We know that legislation has passed to stop any other locality from passing similar law and we want to ensure that the Supreme Court does not take this case where there is no case or controversy that the nra objective in this case. That really radically changes and transports the Second Amendment. We dont want that. We think an appropriate balance has been struck already in the case law and we dont want that to be eroded. Common sense laws save lives. You know there are other cases coming even if you stop this. You know there are other cases coming. What is your objective ultimately . In the next case and the next case. Because there are five justices now who have record of being pretty hospitable to claims against gun regulation. Ultimately we want the court to uphold reasonable interpretations that ensure that things like background checks, extreme risk laws that have now been active in 17 states and the district of columbia and indeed assault weapons ban can be upheld. That is our objective. Certainly we are working with congress and in the courts to make that happen. Thank you
vimarsana.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.