Thread by @StephenGutowski

Breyer and Sotomayer are grilling the plaintiffs right now.

https://twitter.com/StephenGutowski/status/1455890843978588160

Roberts is asking the plaintiffs about what they see as the limits of the Second Amendment's protections for concealed carry. He asks what locations could a government block those with permits from carrying guns.

Plaintiffs respond that places like schools would be an example. They say "sensitive place" restrictions are different from a ban on all concealed carry.

Sotomayer wants to nail down the plaintiffs on what governments could restrict concealed carry. Plaintiffs concede college campuses could be one such location.

Breyer is worried about people getting drunk and shooting each other at football games if they're allowed to have concealed carry permits.

Sotomayor is very focused on the idea that Heller only protects an individual right to have guns inside the home. She says that's where the greatest need for self-defense is.

Gorsuch is asking about what standard of review the plaintiffs want to see for Second Amendment cases moving forward. Plaintiffs say they would take a "text, history, and tradition" standard.

Plaintiffs say the court doesn't need to go further than ruling on the individual case because New York's law is such an outlier.

They further say the court could use a standard similar to strict scrutiny that requires a closely tailored approach to gun regulation.

Kavanaugh asks if the plaintiffs object to "shall-issue" concealed carry laws, which require government officials to issue permits to anyone who passes the required checks and training. Plaintiffs say they have no objections to those laws.

Kavanaugh is describing how the "text, history, and tradition" standard works. He was one of the first to apply it in a dissent on the DC Circuit court. So, that's fitting.

Kavanaugh criticizes plaintiffs for openness to a strict scrutiny standard for Second Amendment cases because it involves balancing interests. Kavanaugh argues that's not appropriate for the Second Amendment.

Barret asks whether plaintiffs think the court should look to First Amendment cases for guidance on how to rule on Second Amendment cases.

That's the end of the plaintiff's portion. Now the Solicitor General is up.

Solicitor General argues that the law isn't an outlier and is consistent with historical regulations on gun carry. Argues the court should employ intermediate scrutiny and uphold the law.

Thomas says the defense relies on the idea that New York is denser than other areas with "shall-issue" laws. Asks what the density cutoff should be to allow total government discretion over issuing of permits.

The defense doesn't really have a cutoff. Says more densely populated areas should have more discretion to determine who can carry guns.

Breyer questions the idea that more densely populated areas, which tend to be more dangerous, should have a broader ability to restrict gun carry. Says it is counterintuitive.

He asks how many crimes take place in the woods compared to the city. Questions why it makes sense to issue a carry permit for deserted areas but not one where a lot of crime actually exists.

The solicitor general doesn't really have a good answer for this. She says the more densely populated and area the higher the risk will be if more people are allowed to carry guns.

This was Roberts, not Breyer. Sorry for the mistake.

Defense argues police will be confused who is good and who is not during a shooting if citizens are generally allowed to legally carry concealed firearms.

Kavanaugh says the core problem is with the discretion given to government officials to determine who can and can't exercise a constitutional right.

Kavanaugh asks what the problem is with "shall-issue" regimes. Defense argues the higher proportion of people carrying guns will inevitably lead to accidents and other negative outcomes.

Kavanaugh asks for evidence that the other jurisdictions with "shall-issue" concealed carry laws actually experience worse outcomes. The defense doesn't have specific examples. Points to a brief from social scientists.

Sotomayor asks why states like New York and Wyoming shouldn't be allowed to have different concealed carry regulations--or even places like New York City and upstate New York.

The defense argues there is a "strong history" of varied regulations on concealed carry.

Thomas asks why the state regulates hunting differently in different parts of the state but won't do the same with concealed carry. He's asking why they wouldn't make concealed carry permits more readily available by law in upstate vs New York City.

Breyer argues that laws government permits for First Amendment activities sometimes also include language including "may" in the same way New York's concealed carry law does.

Alito takes issue with the defense's description of an early 19th century North Carolina statute. He accuses them of not being completely up front with the court by cutting out a key descriptor included in the statute.

The sticking point is over a document that told to arrest people who travel armed. Alito points out that the document was targeted at those who go armed "offensively." Defense says they should've included the word but said it was irrelevant because carried arms were "offensive."

Barett asks if the defense believes Heller was rightly decided. They say yes. She asks if the court is bound by Heller or they can reinterpret sections of that opinion. Defense says yes for certain sections of the analysis they view as non-binding.

New York is done. Now up is US Solicitor General Brian Fletcher. He's arguing to uphold New York's law.

Roberts questions why somebody should need a license that confirms a special need to exercise a constitutional right. He says we wouldn't allow that for the First Amendment.

US argues that history and tradition is on the side of New York's concealed carry regulation regime.

He notes that New York's law dates back a century.

Alito asks if anti-Italian, anti-Union, and anti-Black sentiments during the enactment of New York's concealed carry law played a role in its adoption. US says those attitudes existed but isn't convinced it motivated the law.

US further claims other similar laws existed at the time and weren't motivated by racial bias.

Sotomayor asks if Heller's carveout for categories of people, including the dangerously mentally ill and felons, from Second Amendment protections would stand up to strict scrutiny. US says it doesn't know, but wants the case decided on text, history, and tradition.

Sotomayor asks what the limits of government restrictions on gun possession outside the home are. The US doesn't want to give specific restrictions. Points again to historical gun laws, which they view as expansive, as a guide.

Kagan asks for evidence on how "may-issue" concealed carry laws protect police. Asks for studies. US says it doesn't have any specific numbers available.

US Solicitor General falls back on his own sense police wouldn't like having to stop legally armed citizens compared to those who aren't armed.

Gorsuch asks what standard the US wants to see in Second Amendment cases. US says it supports a text, history, tradition standard and even positively points to Kavanaugh's dissent in Heller II.

Beyond that, they say areas where history and tradition can't provide a clear answer to a question the court should retreat to intermediate scrutiny.

The US is done now. It's back to the plaintiffs for a response.

Plaintiffs argue there is no evidence that jurisdictions with less restrictive concealed carry laws than New York, which includes more of the country and many large cities, have not seen negative outcomes associated with those laws.

Plaintiffs say there is no example of another right being contingent on proving to a government official a special need to exercise that right.

That's it. The court has adjourned until next Monday.