The Supreme Court Tests Its Own Limits on Guns

A critical gun case was argued before the Supreme Court this week. But instead of opening further freedoms for gun owners - as the court, with its conservative supermajority, did in a blockbuster decision last year - justices seemed ready to rule that the government may disarm people under restraining orders for domestic violence.
Adam Liptak, who covers the Supreme Court for The Times, explains why.
Guest: Adam Liptak (www.nytimes.co...) , who covers the Supreme Court for The New York Times and writes Sidebar, a column on legal developments.
Background reading:
• The Supreme Court seemed likely to uphold a law (www.nytimes.co...) disarming domestic abusers.
• But a decision on the case is not expected until June (www.nytimes.co...) .
• What has the Supreme Court said on guns? (www.nytimes.co...)
For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily (nytimes.com/the...) . Transcripts of each episode will be made available by the next workday.
Soon, you’ll need a subscription to keep full access to this show, and to other New York Times podcasts, on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Don’t miss out on exploring all of our shows, featuring everything from politics to pop culture. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts (nytimes.com/pod...) .

[@canadiangemstones7636]

Do Thomas and Alito even concede that wife-beating is a crime?

[@tacticalskiffs8134]

Doesn't mater, they aren't the legislatures. And unlike the Dems, they don't believe that being on SCOTUS means they should legislate from the bench.

[@tacticalskiffs8134]

2A defends the right of battered women to be armed. 2A creates more leverage for people who are smaller in size than those who are, like me, over six foot.

[@blackbird5634]

So a person, not yet convicted of domestic violence but who is involved in a court case about domestic violence, can have his right to own a firearm taken away? Well this is ridiculous. ANYONE can accuse you or I of domestic violence and the law will apply.

[@jerryv9962]

Guns will go no where its here to satay forever forever forever.😊

[@mashruralam5795]

3:21 why would judges need to find historical documents? It would be up to the lawyers on each side to find historical documents. Lawyers already do historical research in historical property ownership cases. So why would applying the same requirements for gun cases be an issue?

[@MayorMcC666]

Me telling my public defender to pull out the magna carta:

[@avataranimefan01]

They would need to check that the documents are legitimate and not tweaked to favor the presenter.

[@garybowler5946]

Wire fraud does not exist because there were no electronic communications in the 1700's. Wow.

[@tacticalskiffs8134]

So Trump judges are moderate and centrist. Got it.