“The reason I’m so confident that this regime is problematic on its face is because on its face, at least as interpreted by the highest court in New York, the requirement you need to show in order to carry concealed for self-defense, but not for hunting and target practice, is you have to show that you have a need for self-defense that distinguishes you from the generalized community, from the general community. What we’re asking for, I mean, one way to think about it is we’re asking that the regime work the same way for self-defense as it does for hunting.” “The difference, of course, you have a concealed weapon to go hunting. You’re out with an intent to shoot, say, a deer or a rabbit, which has its problems. But here, when you have a self-defense, just for whatever you want to carry a concealed weapon, you go shooting it around and somebody gets killed.” “With respect, Justice Breyer, that’s not been the experience in the 43 jurisdictions that allow their citizens to have the same rights that my clients are looking for. This is not something where we’re asking you to take some brave new experiment that no jurisdiction in Anglo-American history have ever done —” “Mr. Clement, may I — those 43 states that you’re talking about, most of them didn’t give unrestricted rights to carry in one form or another until recent times. Before recent times, there were so many different regulations. What it appears to me is that the history tradition of carrying weapons is that states get a lot of deference on this.”



Source link