“SUPREME IMPACT” – NEW YORK LAWMAKERS FIGHT BACK AGAINST SCOTUS GUN RULING

> GOOD EVENING AND WELCOME TO 'METROFOCUS.'

I'M RAFAEL PI ROMAN.

WHAT WILL LIKELY BE THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE SUPREME COURT LANDMARK GUN RULING ON OUR REGION?

STRIKING DOWN A CENTURY OLD NEW YORK GUN LAW LAST MONTH, THE COURT EFFECTIVELY MADE IT EASIER FOR MANY MORE PEOPLE TO CARRY CONCEALED WEAPONS IN PUBLIC.

NO RESPONSE, LAWMAKERS IN NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY PASSED NEW GUN LAWS, BUT WILL THEY BE EFFECTIVE, ESPECIALLY GIVEN THE RISE IN GUN VIOLENCE WE'VE EXPERIENCED OVER THE LAST TWO YEARS?

JOINING US NOW TO ANALYZE THE POTENTIAL REPERCUSSIONS OF THE COURT'S RULING AND THE STATE LAWS PASSED TO COUNTERACT IT IS ROBERT SPITZER, A DISTINGUISHED SCIENCE PROFESSOR AND THE AUTHOR OF A NUMBER OF BOOKS ON GUN POLICY, INCLUDING 'THE POLITIC OF GUN CONTROL'. HE JOINS US NOW AS PART OF OUR SPECIAL SERIES, SUPREME IMPACT, WHERE WE'LL BE LOOKING AT THE RECENT SUPREME COURT RULINGS AND THE IMPACT ON THE TRISTATE REGION.

WELCOME TO THE PROGRAM.

PLEASURE TO HAVE YOU WITH US.

GOOD TO BE WITH YOU.

BOB, FIRST OF ALL, WHAT EXACTLY DID THE SUPREME COURT'S JUNE 23rd LANDMARK GUN RULING DO?

WHAT DID IT STRIKE DOWN, AND WHAT EXACTLY DID IT NOW MAKE POSSIBLE?

WELL, THE RULING IS IMPORTANT FOR A NUMBER OF REASONS.

THE FIRST IS THAT IT DID STRIKE DOWN THE QUALIFIER IN THE NEW YORK STATE LAW, THE PROPER CAUSE PROVISION OF THE STATE CONCEAL CARRY PISTOL PERMITTING PROCESS, BECAUSE IT WAS CONSIDERED TOO DISCRETIONARY, TOO VAGUE, AND WAS ADMINISTER IN THE DIFFERENT WAYS IN DIFFERENT COUNTIES THROUGHOUT THE STATE.

BUT THEY DIDN'T LEAVE THINGS JUST AT THAT.

MORE SIGNIFICANTLY, THE COURT HAS EXPANDED THE DEFINITION OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS.

IN 2008, THE SUPREME COURT RULED IN THE HELLER CASE THAT THERE WAS NOW FOR THE FIRST TIME IN AMERICAN HISTORY, THE INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO HAVE A HANDGUN OR PERSONAL SELF-DEFENSE IN THE HOME, AND THAT'S WHERE THINGS HAVE STOOD SINCE 2008 UNTIL THIS DECISION IN JUNE WHEN THE COURT EXTENDED THAT RIGHT TO THE STREETS, ESSENTIALLY, TO THE PUBLIC REALM, THE PEOPLE HAVE A RIGHT TO HAVE A GUN WITH THEM FOR PERSONAL DEFENSE OUT IN SOCIETY, AND IT'S PRETTY VAGUE AS TO EXACTLY WHERE, HOW, AND WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES, ALTHOUGH THERE ARE SOME STANDARDS THAT IT SET.

IN ADDITION, THE OTHER MAJOR THING THE COURT DID WAS IT TRASHED OR SET ASIDE THE EVALUAIVE STANDARD TO JUDGE WHETHER IT WAS CONSTITUTIONAL OR NOT, AND INSTEAD IN THE DECISION, JUSTICE THOMAS WROTE THE DECISION SPEAKING FOR SIX OF THE NINE MEMBERS OF THE COURT, SAID THAT YOU HAVE TO GO BY HISTORY.

UNFORTUNATELY --

WE'LL GET TO THAT AT THE END, BECAUSE YOU'VE WRITTEN ABOUT THIS, BUT I WANT TO FOCUS ON WHAT IT DOES FOR NEW YORK.

AND AS YOU SAID, THE DECISION WAS SPECIFICALLY FOCUSED ON THIS 111-YEAR-OLD LAW IN NEW YORK, WHICH YOU CALLED -- HAD THE PROPER CAUSE CLAUSE, WHICH IN EFFECT REQUIRED PEOPLE TO DEMONSTRATE A SPECIFIC NEED TO CARRY CONCEALED WEAPONS OUTSIDE OF THE HOME.

LIKE I SAID, IT SPECIFICALLY DEALT WITH A NEW YORK LAW, BUT THERE ARE FIVE OTHER STATES, INCLUDING NEW JERSEY, THAT HAVE SIMILAR LAWS.

WHAT HAPPENS TO THOSE LAWS?

DO THEY AUTOMATICALLY BECOME UNCONSTITUTIONAL?

DO THEY HAVE TO BE CHALLENGED INDIVIDUALLY?

WHAT HAPPENS?

TO THE BEST OF MY UNDERSTANDING, AFTER READING AND STUDYING ABOUT THIS, THE OTHER STATES ARE MOVING AHEAD TO CHANGE THEIR LAWS.

NEW JERSEY HAS, CALIFORNIA, HAWAII, AND I'M ASSUMING OTHER STATES ON THE LIST ARE DOING THE SAME, BECAUSE IT'S CLEAR THEIR WORDING COMPARABLE TO THE NEW YORK LAW IS A PROBLEM, AND THE LAW -- THE EXISTING LAWS DON'T JUST DISAPPEAR ANYMORE THAN THEY DISAPPEAR IN NEW YORK.

THERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO REWRITE THE LAW TO CONFORM TO WHAT THE SUPREME COURT SAID.

THAT'S WHAT NEW YORK LAWMAKERS DID JUST RECENTLY.

SO, YEAH, THINGS ARE BEING REWRITTEN IN THE OTHER STATES, TOO, ALTHOUGH I'M SURE THERE WILL BE CHALLENGES ANY WAY.

THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT.

LET'S TALK ABOUT THE NEW NEW YORK LAWS, WHICH ARE SET TO TAKE EFFECT ON SEPTEMBER 1st.

WHAT DO THOSE LAWS CALL FOR?

ENTER HOW WILL THEY HELP UPSET THE SUPREME COURT'S RULING HERE?

WHICH IS BASICALLY THE INTENTION, TO UPSET THE IMPACT OF THE RULINGS.

THERE ARE THREE BIG AREAS WHERE THE NEW NEW YORK LAW IS KIND OF CHANGING OR JUGGLING THINGS.

ONE IS OF COURSE THEY REMOVED THE PROPER CAUSE CLAUSE, SO THAT'S OUT FROM THE NEW LAW, BUT THEY DID INCLUDE THE DEMONSTRATION OF GOOD AND MORAL CHARACTER, WHICH IN THE LAW WILL BE DEMONSTRATED BY CRITERIA TO THOSE SIMILAR USED IN THE OLD LAW, WHICH IS THEY CAN DO AN IN-PERSON INTERVIEW.

YOU STILL HAVE TO PROVIDE THE NAMES OF FOUR CHARACTER WITNESSES.

THOSE THINGS HELD WITH THE OLD LAW, TOO.

AND THAT YOU ALSO HAVE TO GIVE THE NAMES OF ADULTS LIVING WITH YOU IN YOUR HOME AND IF ANY MINORS ARE PRESENT IN THE HOME.

THAT'S IMPORTANT INFORMATION.

AND MOST CONTROVERSIALLY, TO PROVIDE A LIST OF SOCIAL MEDIA ACCOUNTS.

AND THAT -- THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN CHALLENGED.

THERE ARE ALREADY TWO CHALLENGES I KNOW OF TO THE NEW NEW YORK LAW, EVEN THOUGH IT DOESN'T TAKE EFFECT UNTIL SEPTEMBER 1.

THAT'S ONE CHANGE.

SECOND, IT HAS ESTABLISHED A DETAILED LI OF SENSITIVE PLACES WHERE YOU CANNOT CARRY GUNS TAXPAYER COURT SAID THAT'S OKAY, BUT THEY ALSO SAID, LOOK, YOU CANNOT DECIDE THAT THE ENTIRE ISLAND OF MANHATTAN, FOR EXAMPLE, IS A SENSITIVE PLACE.

YOU HAVE TO DESIGNATE PLACES.

THAT'S WHAT THEY DID.

IT'S A LENGTHY LIST.

I KNOW, AND I HAVE THEM.

IF I COULD INTERRUPT.

LET ME JUST READ THEM.

NOT ALL OF THEM, BUT MOST OF THEM.

SCHOOLS, UNIVERSITIES, GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS, PLACES WHERE PEOPLE GATHERED FOR PUBLIC PROTEST, HEALTH-CARE FACILITIES, PLACES OF WORSHIP, LIBRARIES, PUBLIC PLAYGROUNDS AND PARKS, DAY CARE CENTERS, PUB LIB TRANSIT, BARS, THEATERS, STADIUMS AND AT LEAST A FEW MORE.

ONE COMMENTATOR PUT IT, IT'S ALMOST AS IF ALBANY IS SAYING, OKAY, NEW YORKERS CAN CARRY GUNS OUTSIDE THEIR HOMES IN THEORY, BUT NOT IN PRACTICE.

IS THERE A REAL CHANCE THAT THIS CAN SURVIVE A CHALLENGE TO THE COURTS AND THAT IT COULD ULTIMATELY -- AND MIGHT IT ULTIMATELY BE DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL BY THE SUPREME COURT?

IT'S CERTAINLY POSSIBLE THE SUPREME COURT WILL KNOCK DOWN THIS LIST AND PARTS OF IT, HOWEVER, GIVEN THE HISTORICAL STANDARD THEY SET, I CAN TELL YOU FROM MY OWN RESEARCH OF HISTORICAL GUN LAWS, AND I HAVE BEEN STUDYING A DECADE, EVERY SINGLE NAMED ITEM ON THIS LIST HAS APPEAR IN THE OLD GUN LAWS FROM THE 1600s, 1700s, 1800s THAT BAN GUN CARRYING IN THESE VERY PLACES.

CHURCHES, SCHOOLS, LABORS, COURTHOUSES.

THE ONLY TWO ON THE LIST THAT I DID NOT FIND IN OLD LAWS WERE AIRPORTS, BECAUSE THERE WERE NO AIRPLANES BEFORE THE 20th CENTURY, AND EMERGENCY DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SHELTERS AND HOMELESS SHELTERS, BECAUSE THOSE DIDN'T EXIST BEFORE 1900 EITHER.

I WAS GOING TO GET TO THAT LATER BUT SINCE YOU TOUCHED ON IT A COUPLE TIMES LET ME GET TO IT RIGHT AWAY.

IN THE SUPREME COURT DECISION, JUSTICE THOMAS, AS YOU MADE REFERENCE TO, WROTE, QUOTE, ONLY IF A FIREARM REGULATION IS CONSISTENT WITH THE NATION'S HISTORIC MAY A COURT CONCLUDE THAT AN INDIVIDUAL APT CONDUCT FALLS OUTSIDE THE COMMAND.

NOW, SOME EXPERTS BELIEVE THIS NEW VERY HIGH BAR WILL MAKE IT MUCH MORE DIFFICULT FOR STATES TO PASS MEANINGFUL GUN REFORMS IN THE FUTURE AND THAT PERHAPS EVEN THE BIPARTISAN FEDERAL GUN LAW JUST PASSED MIGHT BE DEEMED UNCONSTITUTIONAL, BUT YOU DISAGREE BECAUSE OF WHAT YOU STARTED TO SAY.

TELL US WHY YOU DISAGREE WITH THOSE EXPERTS.

I WOULD SAY IT THIS WAY -- GUN OWNERSHIP IS AS OLD AS THE COUNTRY, GOING BACK TO THE 1600s, BUT SO ARE GUN LAWS.

AND IN OUR FIRST 300 YEARS OF HISTORY FROM THE EARLY 1600s TO THE START OF THE 20th CENTURY, IN MANY RESPECTS, GUNS MORE MORE HEAVILY REGULATED DURING THAT PERIOD THAN THE LAST 30 YEARS.

WE HAD THOUSANDS OF GUN LAW OF EVERY IMAGINABLE VARIETY IN THE COLONIES AND STATES AND LOCALITIES ALL AROUND THE COUNTRY.

EVEN INCLUDING IN THE SO-CALLED WILD WEST, WHERE NEW GUN LAW WERE ENACTED AS SOON AS PEOPLE BEGAN TO SETTLE AND CONGREGATE.

I MEAN, THAT'S THE REALITY, EVEN THOUGH IT'S NOT WELL KNOWN, OF OUR GUN LAW PAST.

THE ONLY QUALIFIER IS IF YOU READ JUSTICE THOMAS' MAJORITY OPINION, HE DID BACK FLIPS, RHETORICALLY SPEAKING, TO TRY AND AVOID SOME FAIRLY OBVIOUS CONCLUSIONS ABOUT WHAT OLD HISTORICAL LAW IS SAYING BY SAYING THERE WERE ALSO GUN LAWS ABOUT A, 'B,' OR 'C,' BUT DON'T APPLY TO THE CASE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS, WHICH I DIDN'T FIND PERSUASIVE.

CAN THEY FIND A WAY TO OVERTURN A GUN LAW?

YEAH, BUT HISTORY SAYS YOU CAN REGULATE GUNS IN EVERY POSSIBLE WAY YOU CAN THINK OF.

ALL RIGHT, SO LET ME GO BACK TO THE LAW IN NEW YORK NOW.

AND SPECIFICALLY ALL THAT LONG SERIES OF PLACES WHERE THE NEW LAW SAYS THAT YOU CAN'T CARRY A GUN, EVEN IF YOU'RE LICENSED.

HOW DO YOU RESPOND TO THOSE LIKE REPUBLICAN GUBERNATORIAL CANDIDATE LEE ZELDIN WHO ARGUE BY MARKING OUT ALL THESE PLACES AS GUN FREE ZONES, ALBANY IS JUST MAKE THEM MUCH MORE VULNERABLE TO VIOLENT CRIMINALS SINCE THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO ARE GOING TO FOLLOW THE LAWS ARE LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS?

DO THESE CRITICS HAVE A POINT IN IT'S AN OLD ARGUMENT OVG.

IT IS AN OLD ARGUMENT, AND IT'S ONE THAT DOESN'T HAVE ANY EVIDENCE.

FOR EXAMPLE, THERE'S NO PARTICULAR EVIDENCE, NO SYSTEMIC EVIDENCE THAT SHOOTERS -- YOU KNOW, MASS SHOOTERS, FOR EXAMPLE, DELIBERATELY PICK LOCATIONS THAT ARE SOMEHOW DUBBED GUN-FREE ZONES TO GO AND SHOOT AT PEOPLE.

THAT JUST IS NOT A CALCULUS FOR WHY PEOPLE ENGAGE IN MASS SHOOTINGS.

BEYOND THAT, PEOPLE WHO USE A GUN TO COMMIT A CRIME ARE CRIMINALS, BUT THEY ONLY BECOME CRIMINALS AT THE POINT THEY VIOLATE THE LAW.

AND THE COUNTRY, THE WORLD DOESN'T DIVIDE UP NEATLY INTO GOOD GUYS AND BAD GUYS.

YOU'RE A GOOD PERSON UNTIL YOU BREAK THE LAW.

AND SO IT'S NOT USEFUL TO SAY THAT CRIMINALS WILL IGNORE THE LAW.

I MEAN, YOU MAY AS WELL SWEEP ASIDE ALL CRIMINAL LAWS IF YOUR ATTITUDE IS THAT GUN LAWS OR CRIMINAL LAW DON'T MATTER.

THEY DO MATTER.

THAT'S WHY WE HAVE THEM, AND WHEN THERE ARE PROBLEMS WITH THE LAW, WE USUALLY TRY TO FIX THOSE PROBLEMS.

THAT SHOULD BE THE APPROACH, I WOULD SAY.

REALLY QUICKLY -- WE HAVE LESS THAN A MINUTE LEFT.

I MENTIONED THAT NEW JERSEY ALSO PASSED SOME NEW LAWS.

IN ABOUT 40 SECONDS, CAN YOU TELL ME, ARE THERE ANY LAWS IN NEW JERSEY THAT STAND OUT FOR YOU, NEW LAWS THAT YOU THINK ARE PRETTY INTERESTING?

THERE'S NOTHING IN PARTICULAR I WOULD IDENTIFY ABOUT THE NEW JERSEY, THE NEW LAW.

THEY'RE TAKING SOME DIFFERENT APPROACH.

I WILL MENTION ONE OTHER THING ABOUT THE NEW YORK LAW, IT ALSO INCLUDES SOMETHING NEW, A BAN ON GUNS IN PRIVATE LOCATIONS UNLESS BUSINESS OWNERS SAY, YES, YOU CAN BRING A GUN IN.

NEW YORK WILL BE THE FIRST STATE TO HAVE A PROVISION LIKE THAT, AND I'LL BE INTERESTED TO SEE HOW THAT'S TREATED BY THE COURTS, BECAUSE IT WILL BE CHALLENGED FOR SURE.

YEAH, I SAW THAT, AND I'M NOT A LAWYER, BUT I AGREE WITH YOU.

WE HAVE TO END IT THERE, BOB.

THANK YOU SO MUCH.

THIS HAS BEEN VERY HELPFUL.

APPRECIATE YOU JOINING US TODAY.

GOOD TO SPEAK WITH YOU.