Venture beyondto the curtilage with the firearm even locked and unloaded a matter of government grace. That view is and can student with text history tradition and this courts cases. The text of the Second Amendment to protect rights to keep and bear arms. That latter right makes clear that the Second Amendment protect rights that are not strictly limited to the premises. There is no historical analogue for the citys prohibition on transporting firearms to places where they may be lawfully used. To the contrary, the Second Congress required the militia to take their own firearms from their homes to the training ground. The regulations on limiting where firearms may be discharged or training may occur that the city invokes both underscore that the general rule was that firearms can be safely transported between and among places where they could be used and discharged. The court recognizes this much in heller both by recognizing the long history of handgun possession outside the home and
Make clear that new york citys restrictive premises license and accompanying transport ban are unconstitutional. The citys restriction on transporting firearms to places where they may be lawfully possessed and its insistence in its revised regulations that any transport be continuous and uninterrupted are premised on a view of the Second Amendment as a homebound right with any ability to venture beyond the area with a firearm. That view is inconsistent with text, history and tradition and this courts cases. The text of the Second Amendment protects rights to keep and bear arms. That latter right makes clear that the Second Amendment protects rights that are not strictly limit today the premise and theres no historical analog for the citys prohibition on transporting firearms to places where they may be lawfully used. To the contrary, the Second Congress required the militia to take their own firearms from their homes to the Training Ground and the regulations on limiting where firearm
State acity of new york. Text and tradition make clear that new york city restricted premises license and accompanying transport bannekers constitutional. To transport the continuous and uninterrupted premised on a view of the Second Amendment as homebound right. With any ability to venture beyond the curtilage with the firearm even locked and unloaded a matter of government grace. That view is and can student with text history tradition and this courts cases. The text of the Second Amendment to protect rights to keep and bear arms. That letter right makes clear that the Second Amendment protect rights that are not strictly limited to the premises. There is no historical analogue for the citys prohibition on transporting firearms to places where they may be lawfully used. To the contrary, the Second Congress required the militia to take their own firearms from their homes to the training ground. The regulations on limiting where firearms may be discharged or training may occur that the
The oral argument is one hour d inutes. Hear argument first this morning, case 23411, murthy v. Missouri. Mr. Fletcher. Mr. Fletcher thank you. The government may not use corso e speed for itself i informing, persuading or criticizing private speakers. This case should be about the fundamental distinction between persuasion and coercion. This is not a typical student where a speaker challenges Government Actions affecting its own speech. Two states and five individuals are trying to use this to with and about social media platforms. That problem has infected every part of the case. Respondents dont have standing because they have not shown an imminent threat at the government will cause the platform to monitor your post in particular. A lowercase viewed a vast range of speech without asking whether it had anything to do with responses. The courts entered a universal,h about any content. Even apart from the article three problem, that injunction rests on two errors. The fifth circuit ra
Only if viewed objectively. And because nose av justice ti the government. Justice thas employing state action . Often, and suing the government. Things like medicare or government contracts, tieoblem if the government stays on the side of coercionecinal question. Rn ghin g,owbeurount ri cve rc plteneurthciy on ngar at chet innsn ye to let me follow up on that. Even if one of the plaintiffs have standing, we are requiredthhe utwas restricted at the time when the complaint was filed. Why ha oty eest t , thin and you havent attempted to show that the fio,th notion of traceability. Ta and the platforms are doing moderation. Action and then trace it to a single consequence . Mr. Fletcher i thomueorofafter. Justice alito i have looked at that. On the issue of causation are they required toivating factor . Mr. Fletcher i dont know the answer to that in all cases. Aal inres to 21 some of them involved platforms like linke Justice Sotomayor do you think there are any factual findings with resp