Kostas Moros - Will the Supreme Court strengthen gun rights?

 A federal appeals court struck down New Jersey's assault weapons and magazine capacity bans, setting up another major Second Amendment battle. Could the Supreme Court take the next step? Kostas Moros is the Director of Legal Research and Education at the Second Amendment Foundation. He joins the show to discuss the ruling, what it means for gun owners, and what could happen next. 

Transcript

SPEAKER_00 0:08

Welcome back to the Lawrence Larson Show. I am so gratified to see that our Second Amendment rights are getting much stronger in America. A federal court just blew a hole in New Jersey's gun ban, and the Supreme Court, well, now they're next. Is your right to bear arms about to get a whole lot stronger? I thought we'd talk about that with Costas Moros, who is Director of Legal Research and Education at the Second Amendment Foundation. Good to have you back.

SPEAKER_01 0:34

Great to be on again, Lars. Thanks for having me on, and for a very good reason this time.

SPEAKER_00 0:39

Well, and am I wrong to be optimistic that it seems as though things are getting better and better, and frankly have been for about 30 years, despite all the best efforts of the folks on the left, now the Democrat Socialists of America, to take Americans' gun rights away.

SPEAKER_01 0:54

You know, that's what's actually really great about this Third Circuit ruling. So it was a huge morale blow to the anti-gun side because not only did the Third Circuit strike down New Jersey's assault weapons and magazine ban, but the judge who wrote the majority opinion was appointed by Joe Biden. So they're even losing their own people. Yes, it was a 10-5 ruling, so it wasn't even that close. And two Biden-appointed judges were in that 10-judge majority. One Republican appointed by H.W. Bush, to be fair, was in the dissent, so we did lose one uh older Republican, but overall we did very well, and I think it was an appropriately demoralizing uh victory for the other side. So we're in very good shape.

SPEAKER_00 1:37

At some level, Costas, I mean, I'm glad to see that there are some federal judges who take their job seriously and say, my job is to call balls and strikes, that I need to look at the Constitution and then look at the question before us and then decide it, not based on what your personal politics are or the people who appointed you, but do it based on what the Constitution and the law actually says. Was there any ever any real doubt that what New Jersey had done was clearly violating the Second Amendment?

SPEAKER_01 2:06

Not on the merits, no. But you uh you know what's what's frustrating about this is that a series of other circuit courts, uh the the Ninth Circuit, the Second Circuit, the First Circuit, the Fourth Circuit, had upheld these bans, uh, sometimes over dissents, but the majorities of these courts had all ruled in ridiculous rulings that these bans don't violate the Second Amendment. And the reason that happened is because these courts, of course, are stacked with anti-gun judges, and we've been saying this whole time that once we finally get to a fair circuit, we're going to win. And that happened today. The Third Circuit isn't even the most conservative circuit, by the way. They're they're not the fifth or the eighth or the sixth, but uh just the fact that we had some degree of fairness, we immediately prevailed, and we think we're gonna prevail again at the Supreme Court. So, yes, judges should call balls and strikes, and I shouldn't be excited that a Biden-appointed judge did the right thing, but here we are. My cynicism has finally been cured a little bit.

SPEAKER_00 2:59

Well, and since you say this is heading to the Supreme Court, so the opponent or the pro opponents of the ban are now gonna appeal this to the Supreme Court. But do you think there's ever any inkling on the part of the anti-gunners? If we take this to the Supreme Court and they give us a definitive ruling on New Jersey, and not in our favor, but in favor of the Second Amendment, then that's gonna end an awful lot of their efforts, isn't it?

SPEAKER_01 3:22

Oh, true, but but to be clear, the Supreme Court, even before this ruling, had already decided to hear an assault weapons case, specifically the Illinois, the Cook County ban out of Chicago, in a SAF case called Vier Montes v. Cook County. So although this uh ruling from the Third Circuit is excellent, uh the Supreme Court's already going to deal with this issue uh this fall and probably a ruling next June. So even if New Jersey decided to cynically not appeal to protect the bans of other states, it's too late for that. The Supreme Court is going to hear this issue.

SPEAKER_00 3:54

You know what I wonder is is this ruling by the Third Circuit Court goes into effect immediately in New Jersey and the law is then gutted, right? Uh but is there any likelihood that the New Jersey legislature is gonna go back and say, well, if it was unconstitutional, we should go back and simply take it out of the law?

SPEAKER_01 4:12

Uh probably not. What what I suspect they will do, first of all, they're gonna try and get a stay, which they might get. Sometimes courts will stay their own ruling, especially when the Supreme Court's about to rule on the issue in the next year. So I wouldn't be surprised if the Third Circuit allows New Jersey to uh continue enforcing it in the meantime. I hope not. But um uh the more likely thing, let's say they fail that, I I suspect what New Jersey will do next, having seen their ban get defeated, is move to a licensing system. So let's say, okay, well, you're not gonna let us ban it, fine, but we're gonna make it a pain to get these uh to get these guns. We'll make you do a training course and licensing and pay fees. So there will be more battles to come, I'm sure, but at least we will have moved the ball forward. This ban will die, so there will be a way to finally get these guns in places like New Jersey, California, et cetera, once we prevail, but we will have to fight that next battle because they're never going to give up. That's I'm sad.

SPEAKER_00 5:09

I'm talking to Costas Moros, who's uh the Director of Legal Education and Research at the Second Amendment Foundation. Well, you you know, you're you're very much in in my neighborhood, I've you know, the the state at least says you have to take these training courts and everything else. Are these being successfully challenged as well? I mean, because to me, I've told my audience, this to me uh smells like, stinks like the poll tests and the poll taxes, you know, that that were fought by black Americans saying you can't make us take a test or pay a fee to exercise a constitutional right and go down and vote. And and that was very successful and very popular with both the left and the right. Is there any chance we can get that thrown out as well?

SPEAKER_01 5:52

Yeah, we're working on that in three fronts right now. So uh I successfully uh represented a couple of plaintiffs and SAF and other orgs in a case called CRPA versus LASD, where Los Angeles Sheriff's Department was taking two years to issue CCW permits. And we sued them and won a preliminary injunction and said you can't do that anymore. And now LASD still takes a while, but it's more like a few months rather than two years. We also have a lawsuit pending now against California's excise tax. They placed an 11% tax on guns and ammo. We're suing them over that. That's in progress. And we have another one over the $2,000 in fees that Santa Clara County charges for a CCW permit. And we suspect, although this is all in the carry permit context, I would not be shocked to see all these same Jim Crow style efforts uh when it comes to the so-called assault weapons if they're forced to make those legal. So, yes, these battles are continuing, but we're already on top of it.

SPEAKER_00 6:46

I mean, do you think the left starts to understand that they really are they're making themselves look just like the people who tried to say, yes, we'll let black people vote, but they've got to do a test, they gotta pay a tax, they gotta do this, they gotta do that. That that's that's the stuff that they're they're doing, and it harkens back to the roots of the Democrat Party.

SPEAKER_01 7:05

I mean, they can't even I I agree with all that, yes, that that is what they're doing, but I don't know if they realize it. But you know, you don't even have to go that far. Right now, you have people like Chuck Schumer and others arguing about how racist the Save Act is because it might require you to have ID to vote. But in New York, where he's from, to get a carry permit, you have to provide your birth certificate, you have to provide all this way more documentation than the Save Act requires, plus personal references, plus a training course, plus a police interview, just to exercise the right to carry. So if it's so racist to show ID to vote, then how is it not racist, as he says, to require all of much, much more for the Second Amendment, you know? So they they you don't even have to go back to the historical example. You can look at what they're saying today and call them hypocrites.

SPEAKER_00 7:50

Unbelievable. Costas Moros is the Director of Legal Research and Education at the Second Amendment Foundation. Costas, thanks very much. Back in just a moment. Glad to get your calls. 866-439-5277. Naysayers always go first on the Lars Larson show.