周三，美国最高法院花了近两个小时与隐蔽携带手枪近十几个州出于公共安全的考虑实施了限制。
关于第二修正案权利的口头辩论——法院十多年来最重要的一次——集中在一个百年历史的纽约该州法律要求持枪者出示“正当理由”或特殊需要才能在公共场合携带手枪自卫。
其他八个州也有类似的“可以发布”法律，允许地方当局根据具体情况决定谁可以获得许可证。大多数州有更宽松的要求，让守法的枪支拥有者更容易携带。
法院的许多保守派法官似乎对纽约式的制度持怀疑态度，这种制度将携带武器的宪法权利置于政府官员的自由裁量权之下。与此同时，一些人对如果套利限制被过度削减的公共安全表示担忧。
首席大法官约翰·罗伯茨说，第二修正案“将被解释为与你解释宪法其他条款相同的方式”。“在《权利法案》的背景下，你需要许可证才能行使权利的想法是不寻常的。”
“为什么说‘我生活在暴力地区，我希望能够保护自己’还不够好?”正义问道布雷特·卡瓦诺。“这是真正的问题，不是吗，对于任何宪法权利来说，如果是个别官员的自由裁量权，这似乎与客观的宪法权利不一致。”
卡瓦诺后来补充说:“允许政权存在是有历史和传统的，而且一直存在到今天。”。“但这是一个‘应当发放’与‘可以发放’(许可证)的狭义法律问题。”
纽约州副检察长芭芭拉·安德伍德(Barbara Underwood)极力为该州的“五月问题”法律辩护，称其符合美国各州对公共场合携带枪支进行合理限制的历史和传统。
“纽约不是一个局外人，”安德伍德说。“很多普通人都有执照。”但是，她坚持说，最高法院本身已经裁定携带枪支的权利不是无限的。
安德伍德说，限制较少的隐蔽携带制度将“增加在高密度场所携带枪支的数量”。"地铁上武器泛滥令许多人感到恐惧。"
首席大法官罗伯茨和大法官埃琳娜·卡根、艾米·科尼·巴雷特和斯蒂芬·布雷耶都承认对在公共场所隐藏携带武器感到担忧，每个人都向律师保罗·克莱门特施压，律师保罗·克莱门特代表一群纽约枪支所有者挑战法律。
“它们是危险的枪支，”斯蒂芬·布雷耶法官说。“依你看...你想要没有限制?”
克莱门特回答说:“我们要求(允许)制度在自卫时像在狩猎时一样发挥作用。”。
大法官萨缪尔·阿利托和克拉伦斯·托马斯长期以来一直对第二修正案持开放态度，他们建议纽约州需要更好地调整其要求，以适应居住在人口密度较低的农村地区的居民。
“你不能在中央公园持枪打猎，”托马斯法官说，“但我肯定在纽约州北部或西部的一些地方你可以。”...如果你可以为了狩猎的目的而有这种差异，具体来说，为什么你不能根据第二修正案有一个类似的定制方法，如果纽约市的密度，如果这是一个问题，地铁，那么你就有一个不同于纽约北部的关注点?”
阅读更多
警长:Beacon带领小组找到被袭击的人怀俄明州的灰熊
纽约州步枪和手枪协会，全国步枪协会的附属机构带来了这个案子一直希望法院的6-3保守派多数会确认一项广泛的权利，携带枪支外出自卫。
克莱门特坚持认为，第二修正案的文本提供了“不仅保留武器，而且携带武器”的保证。
拜登政府的一名律师辩称，几十年来，美国拥有枪支的历史和传统一直限制秘密携带。首席副检察长布赖恩·弗莱彻认为，这样的法律“跨越了全国所有地区的150年”。“法院面临的问题是，在[各州]采取的所有方法中，第二修正案是否必须取消这一方法?”
随着枪支销量在全国范围内持续飙升，枪支暴力死亡人数持续攀升，关于隐蔽携带权利的辩论开始了。根据独立的国家枪支暴力档案，今年迄今为止，已有超过35，000名美国人死于枪支。
在这种情况下，法院的自由派法官似乎准备投票支持纽约州的法律，并确认自由裁量许可项目。
在法庭外，一群枪支暴力受害者和幸存者——包括佛罗里达州帕克兰、俄亥俄州代顿和肯塔基州路易斯维尔大规模枪击事件的代表——举行了一次小型集会，让人们听到他们的声音。前亚利桑那州众议员加贝·吉福兹也向人群发表了讲话。
Everytown Law的执行董事埃里克·蒂尔施威尔说:“今天的辩论清楚地表明，即使是法院最保守的法官也对授予枪支游说团体在本案中的最终目标——任何时候在所有公共场所携带枪支的无限制权利——犹豫不决。”
他说:“法院最终可能会以多种方式来裁决此案，而裁决的细节至关重要。”“正如大法官今天听到的那样，这最终关系到当选官员是否能够继续做出保护他们社区的决定——包括限制谁可以在足球场、大学校园和购物中心携带枪支。”
Supreme Court debates gun rights in dramatic two-hour argument over concealed carry, self-defense
The nation's highest court on Wednesday spent nearly two hours wrestling with the concealed carry of handguns in public places and discretionary permitting requirements in nearly a dozen states that impose limits in the interest of public safety.
The oral arguments on Second Amendment rights -- the court's most consequential in more than a decade -- focused on a century-old New York state law that requires gun owners to show "proper cause" -- or a specific special need -- to carry a handgun in public for self-defense.
Eight other states have similar "may issue" laws that give local authorities discretion to decide who receives a license based on particularized circumstances. Most states have looser requirements giving otherwise law-abiding gun owners easier ability to carry.
Many of the court's conservative justices appeared skeptical of New York-style regimes that subject a constitutional right to bear arms to the discretion of a government official. At the same time, several raised concerns about public safety if carry restrictions were rolled back too far.
The Second Amendment "is to be interpreted the same way you'd interpret other provisions of the Constitution," said Chief Justice John Roberts. "The idea you need a license to exercise the right is unusual in the context of the Bill of Rights."
Toll now at 53 in San Antonio as families waitfor answers
"Why isn't it good enough to say, I live in a violent area and I want to be able to defend myself?" asked Justice Brett Kavanaugh. "That's the real concern, isn't it, with any constitutional right, if it's the discretion of an individual officer, that seems inconsistent with an objective constitutional right."
"There is a history and tradition, and it exists to the present day, of permitting regimes," Kavanaugh added later. "But it's a narrow legal issue of 'shall issue' versus 'may issue' [a permit]."
New York Solicitor General Barbara Underwood vigorously defended the state's "may-issue" law as consistent with the history and tradition of U.S. states enacting reasonable limits on the carrying of firearms in public.
"New York is not an outlier," Underwood argued. "Many ordinary people have licenses." But, she insisted, the Supreme Court itself has ruled that the right to carry a gun is not unlimited.
Less restrictive concealed carry regimes would "multiply the number of firearms carried in high-density places," Underwood said. "Proliferation of arms on subways terrifies a lot of people."
Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Elena Kagan, Amy Coney Barrett, and Stephen Breyer all acknowledged concerns about concealed carry of weapons in public places, each pressing attorney Paul Clement, who represented a group of New York gun owners challenging the law.
"They are dangerous guns," said Justice Stephen Breyer. "In your opinion ... you want no restrictions?"
"We're asking for the [permitting] regime to work the same way for self-defense as it does for hunting," Clement replied.
Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, who have long held an expansive view of the Second Amendment, suggested New York needed to better tailor its requirements to accommodate residents living in less-densely-populated rural areas.
"You can't hunt with a gun in Central Park," said Justice Thomas, "but I'm certain there are places in Upstate or Western New York where you can ... If you can have that difference for the purpose of hunting, specifically, why can't you have a similar tailored approach for the Second Amendment based upon if it's density in New York City, if that's a problem, the subway, then you have a different set of concerns than Upstate New York?"
The New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, an NRA-affiliate, which brought the case has been hopeful that the Court's 6-3 conservative majority would affirm a sweeping right to carry guns outside the home for self-defense across the state.
The text of the Second Amendment offers a guarantee "not just to keep arms, but to bear them," insisted Clement.
An attorney for the Biden administration argued that history and tradition of gun ownership in the US has featured limits on concealed carry for decades. Such laws "span 150 years in all regions of the country," argued Principal Deputy Solicitor General Brian Fletcher. "The question before the court is, of all the approaches [states have] taken, is this one the Second Amendment must take off the table?"
The debate over concealed carry rights comes as gun sales continue to soar across the country and gun violence deaths have continued to climb. More than 35,000 Americans have been killed by guns so far this year, according to the independent National Gun Violence Archive.
In a nod to those circumstances, the court’s liberal justices seemed ready to vote to uphold New York's law and affirm discretionary permitting programs.
Outside the court, a group of gun violence victims and survivors -- including representatives from mass shootings in Parkland, Florida, Dayton, Ohio, and Louisville, Kentucky -- held a small rally to make their voices heard. Former Arizona Rep. Gabby Giffords also addressed the crowd.
"Today’s argument made clear that even the court’s most conservative justices have hesitations about granting the gun lobby its ultimate goal in this case - the unrestricted right to carry guns in all public places at all times," said Eric Tirschwell, executive director of Everytown Law.
"There are a number of ways the court could ultimately decide this case, and the details of its ruling matter," he said. "As the justices heard today, this is ultimately about whether elected officials will continue to be able to make decisions about protecting their communities - including by limiting who can carry guns in football stadiums, university campuses and shopping malls."
