Thread by @JonathanMetzl

Among the many layers of tragic irony surrounding tomorrow's SCOTUS case:

1. The law in question has already been changed in the plaintiff's favor - they have nothing left to gain, and the case is, by definition, moot.

But...

2. Trump admin urging Court to decide the case anyway, telling the justices the dispute is still meaningful because **residents could seek damages** for not being able to drive around with their guns.

But...

3. Of course, in America today, gun shooting victims and families can *not* seek damages vs gun manufacturers

And...

4. There is of course far more at stake here. Conservative-majority could use case to expand gun rights/threaten a wide array of gun control measures nationwide such as expanded BR checks and “red flag” laws. Ie, one pot ruling could upend the entire gun control movement.

And...

5. Even one of the men who brought the case, Efrain Alvarez, does not support how its being used: "a supporter of gun control measures like strong background checks...said he hopes the ruling in his case does not undermine other firearms restrictions." reuters.com/article/us-usa…

6. IE, the case could have huge implications - or be deemed moot. If the latter, then lots of others in the wings, including
a New Jersey case that could determine whether people have a constitutional right to carry a loaded handgun in public.

And...

7. Ultimate goal of NRA, etc - to expand 2008 "Heller rights" from home into public, make it impossible for cities/states to make public health arguments/policies - like restricting carry of loaded handguns in public places like bars, trains, schools, etc (Like(NJ, CA, NY do.)

8. Thus, Gun-control advocates worry that ruling could spell doom for measures considered lawful by appeals courts--assault weapon bans, red flag, etc. You read this right - the court could *do away with considerations of public safety* known as a balancing test.

Ie,

9. As Hannah Shearer @GiffordsCourage puts it, “It would mean that judges couldn’t consider the public safety need for any given gun law and would only be looking at whether the law is supported by early American history,” cnbc.com/2019/11/29/sup…

Ie,

@GiffordsCourage 10, what's happening now is really (really!) important for the future of US gun laws, rights, shootings, injuries, deaths. At stake is nothing less than the potential mootness, not of the case, but of *public health expertise, *existing gun laws, *modern US gun control movement

@GiffordsCourage 11/final - as well as whether cities/states have the right to set their own gun laws in the name of public safety, vs be forced to adopt policies that have resulted in disaster in other states, eg, nytimes.com/2019/03/11/opi…