expecting it to be struck down by the originalists citing Scalia's terrible Heller decision, nevermind the fact that local bans on concealed carry are as "longstanding" (the Heller standard) any other kind of gun restriction smithsonianmag.com/history/gun-co…
That said, what would such a decision mean for violence, crime, and daily life in New York City? A lot depends on just how expansive the majority's opinion is, but it's not clear to me this would immediately translate into much higher rates of gun carrying and violence.
Right now New York has perhaps the most restrictive public carry laws in the country, with a discretionary "my issue" standard requiring petitioners to demonstrate an actual need to carry outside the home.
Say SCOTUS makes permits "shall issue," with no local discretion over issuance - that would put New York in the legal same category the majority of states, which have variable gun cultures, ubiquity of carry, and rates of shootings. giffords.org/lawcenter/gun-…
Alabama and Florida are "shall issue" states, but so are Oregon, Rhode Island, and Washington. Gun culture is pretty distinct around the country. It grows out of centuries of social mores around interpersonal violence. In this regard, the South really is different.
Permissive gun carry laws don't actually lead to the liberal nightmare of vigilantism, though politically that cuts both ways: defensive gun use is extremely rare, to the point that right wing claims about the constant need for self protection should not be given credence.
What permissive public carry laws seem to engender is not vigilantism but carelessness. People leave weapons in cars and other insecure places. They lose them. Hundreds of thousands of guns get lost or stolen every year, supplying the black market. thetrace.org/2016/09/stolen…
Anyway, I don't think even a very pro-gun SCOTUS decision will upend centuries of social convention in parts of the country where people don't carry guns in public, but it could indirectly lead to more guns making their way to the criminal market.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Read my story from last year on how the NRA's bylaws and senior officers' personal fealty to Wayne LaPierre made it impossible for the group to reckon with its own corruption thetrace.org/2019/07/nra-re…
As a NY nonprofit law expert told me last year, Tish James' legal strategy could be a risky one and it's not clear that even if the suit succeeds, it would truly mean the death of the organization. thetrace.org/2019/05/heres-…
a story: once in chicago's humboldt park nabe, i was walking to a friends house w some beers. i passed two teenagers with their girlfriends who made a joke about me giving them a couple. half a block later, they ran up behind me and tried to grab the beer out of my hands...
it was their bad luck that they happened to do this in front of an alley where a CPD cruiser ambled towards us. the cops saw chased the kids and caught them. afterward i told the cops i was fine, that they hadn't even managed to get the beer out of my hand.
two months later i showed up cook county juvenile court for the kid's court appearance. the prosecutor went over the police report. the cops lied about almost every detail of the encounter.
In a new piece @VickyPJWard reports that New York Magazine was going to run a profile on Epstein by Michael Wolff that was killed out of fact checking concerns. Fun fact: I was the checker who killed it! One of my weirdest fact-checking experiences. thedailybeast.com/jeffrey-epstei…
Wolff let Epstein dictate the the piece. He made some agreement that all fact questions would go through Epstein and only Epstein. In the piece, Wolff reported various powerful men still hung out with Epstein - but gave me no proof. I was not allowed to call them for comment.
Not surprisingly, NY Mag's lawyers weren't thrilled about a story that alleged various rich and potentially litigious men socialized with a sexual predator without any proof or calling them for comment. As I recall the editor wasn't even aware Wolff had made this agreement.
SCOOP from me: the NRA's lawyer in its case against its insurance business partners failed to disclose a "serious" ethics violation thetrace.org/2018/08/nra-la…
William A. Brewer III is a successful corporate lawyer with practices in Dallas and New York. The @NRA hired him to take on New York regulators who cracked down on its Carry Guard self-defense insurance, and the insurance brokers who backed out of the program under pressure.
The case against the insurer, Lockton Affinity, has been filed in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, where Brewer is not a member of a bar. So he had to submit a "pro hac vice" application to appear as the NRA's counsel.