What’s at Stake in Supreme Court Second Amendment Case | Media Briefing

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear a Second Amendment case Nov. 3 bringing massive implications for the decision-making process used to decide whether a person can carry a gun in public.

It will be the first major Second Amendment case at the nation’s highest court since the landmark District of Columbia vs. Heller case in 2008, when the court struck down a Washington, D.C., ban on handgun ownership in the home.

Three Duke experts spoke Monday about this week’s case, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, its implications for the ability of states to regulate guns, and the possibly shrinking role evidence-based research might play in gun-permitting decisions.


𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐚𝐧𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐬

Joseph Blocher is a law professor at Duke University who studies the balance between the rights of individual gun owners and the rights of citizens to be free of gun violence. He co-directs the Center for Firearms Law at Duke Law School.

Darrell Miller is a Duke law professor whose study of constitutional law includes interpretations of the Second Amendment. He also co-directs the Center for Firearms Law at Duke Law. His scholarship on the Second Amendment has been cited by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Jeffrey Swanson is a professor in psychiatry and behavioral sciences at the Duke School of Medicine. He is a social scientist researcher who works to reduce firearm-related violence and suicide. He is also a faculty affiliate of the Center for Firearms Law.

𝐌𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐚 𝐁𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐟𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐬
This video is part of a series of media briefings where Duke experts speak on current issues.

𝐀𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐃𝐮𝐤𝐞 𝐔𝐧𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐲
A private research university located in Durham, North Carolina, Duke University is known as one of the world’s leading institutions for education, research, and patient care.

𝐅𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐨𝐰 #𝐃𝐮𝐤𝐞𝐔𝐧𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐲

[geraldstevens]

Why do the states with the most restrictive gun laws have the largest percentage of serious crimes?

[mikeb.]

Why is there no mention of Caetano v. Massachusetts (2016) where the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding" and that "the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States"

[deebee]

NY State is going to lose this case and all states and cities that restrict 2A rights will automatically be under review. 🇺🇸

[peanut]

keep and bear pretty simple, and its a right. what other right demands a permit?

[bradbowers]

Since 2008 in the landmark supreme Court decision gun violence has gone down significantly

[peanut]

@ 22:57 notice the anti gun person leaves his previously noted group of suicides (57%) as young angry men with arguments gone bad as example!...two very different things in his numbers that need to be separated. Also not a mention of mental illness shootings.

[williambontrager]

I encourage these "lawyers" to apply this same standard of analysis to free speech or the civil rights amendment and see how fast the left calls them fascists.

[TheDidjidude]

What these gent's fail to realize is that your name and potential lawsuit/ prison time is on every bullet that leaves that gun and you had better be able to justify your actions.

[brianthompson]

This has to be the most incompetent group of professors I've ever seen.

[whateveryoulyke]

I appreciate the level of detail going on. It'd be nice to hear research on numbers of violent crimes deterred by legal carrying of citizens.

[maxcorder]

Regulate, regulate, regulate. And restrict and deny. Maybe this time they will recognize the individuals are responsible for their own self defense.

[ratherbyexploring]

I’m guessing “bodyguard” is a proper cause in NY? So rich people can benefit from being protected by guns?

[CoryHobbs]

I would love to see John Lott on this call to refute all the ridiculous assertions.

[voxman]

Duke is so hyper partisan against the 2A that it's adorable

[luski]

Once people realize that at any given time they are outside of there house they are surrounded by ccw holders carrying a gun as i do. Society will adapt. i assume everyone around me is armed and that is my mindset. More sheepdogs means a safer herd.

[seancastle]

It is disingenuous bordering on misleading misleading to suggest that the court in short order took 2nd amendment cases because they refuse to hear over a dozen

[pmhnic]

Since I don't think these lawyers talk to a lot of average, law abiding American citizens they may not be aware of a few things. Many Americans understand words "keep and bear arms" to mean keeping firearms at home and bearing them outside the home for personal protection with few exceptions on where. They understand this to be a right of all law abiding citizens and not just a select few deemed by the licensing authority to have some special need of a firearm for self-defense as is the case NY. NYS made the argument that its long history and tradition of infringing on individuals 2nd Amendment rights is proper grounds for continuing that infringement. In my view SCOTUS role is to strike down unjust infringements regardless of how long those infringements have been in place. Forty-three states recognize self-defense as proper cause for bearing arms in public. NY, CA and the other states that don't are the outlayers. They argument that population density places a role (concealed carry by law abiding citizens is dangerous in populated places) has been proven wrong in highly populated cities like Dallas, Miami, Phoenix, etc. Some make a very simplistic argument that more guns on the streets means more violent crime without any regard for who is carrying those guns. There is no evidence that shows the passage of CCW laws allowing concealed carry for personal increases violent crime. Anyone that makes that claim is fear mongering. It will be very interesting to see how this cases plays out.

[adyszel]

Swanson is using the term homicide, which includes judicious use of justifiable force. Very important note here. More homicides could be better if they were preventing murder or serious bodily injury.

[kez]

What a crock of bias BS! Shall issue DOES NOT mean states have no discretion to issue permits. Shall issue only means issuing agents can not unilaterally deny permits based on political ideology. There must be a reason for denial as opposed to may issue states that can deny permits just because they don't like citizens to carry.

[munnyshot]

How about how many lives where saved, women, not raped, children not molested, people not robbed, or not being assaulted? When you say homicide went up how many where in self defense?