周三，美国最高法院花了将近两个小时的时间与隐蔽携带手枪在公共场所和近十几个州的自由许可要求中，为了公共安全的利益而施加限制。

关于第二修正案权利的口头辩论——这是法院十多年来最重要的一次——集中在一个世纪前纽约该州法律要求枪支拥有者在公共场合携带手枪进行自卫时，必须出示“正当理由”或特定的特殊需要。

其他八个州也有类似的“可能颁布”法律，赋予地方当局根据具体情况决定谁获得许可证的自由裁量权。大多数州有更宽松的要求，让守法的枪支拥有者更容易携带。

该法院的许多保守派法官似乎对纽约式的制度持怀疑态度，这种制度将宪法赋予的携带武器的权利交由政府官员斟酌决定。与此同时，一些人担心，如果运载限制缩减得太多，公共安全会受到影响。

首席大法官约翰·罗伯茨说，第二修正案“将被解释为与你解释宪法其他条款的方式相同”。“在《权利法案》的背景下，你需要执照才能行使这项权利的想法是不寻常的。”

“为什么说，我生活在一个暴力的地区，我想能够保护自己，这还不够好?”法官问道布雷特·卡瓦诺。“这才是真正的担忧，不是吗，任何宪法权利，如果是个别官员的自由裁量权，那似乎都不符合客观的宪法权利。”

卡瓦诺后来补充说:“允许政权存在是有历史和传统的，而且一直延续到今天。“但这是一个狭隘的法律问题，即‘应当颁发’与‘可以颁发’[许可证]。”

纽约副检察长芭芭拉·安德伍德(Barbara Underwood)极力为该州的“5月发布”法辩护，称该法符合美国各州对公共场合携带枪支实施合理限制的历史和传统。

“纽约不是一个例外，”安德伍德认为。“很多普通人都有执照。”但是，她坚持认为，最高法院本身已经裁定携带枪支的权利不是无限的。

安德伍德说，限制较少的隐蔽携带制度将“增加在高密度场所携带的枪支数量”。"地铁上武器泛滥让很多人感到恐惧。"

汤姆·布伦纳/路透社

凯蒂·诺沃特尼走在第一街上，一边展示着抗议的标志.

首席大法官罗伯茨和大法官埃琳娜·卡根、艾米·科尼·巴雷特和斯蒂芬·布雷耶都承认对公共场所隐藏携带武器的担忧，每个人都向律师保罗·克莱门特施压，保罗·克莱门特代表一群纽约枪支所有者挑战法律。

“它们是危险的枪支，”斯蒂芬·布雷耶法官说。“在你看来...你想要没有限制?”

克莱门特回答说:“我们要求(允许)政权像打猎一样进行自卫。

萨缪尔·阿利托法官和克拉伦斯·托马斯法官长期以来对第二修正案持开放态度，他们建议纽约州需要更好地调整其要求，以适应居住在人口不太密集的农村地区的居民。

“你不能在中央公园用枪打猎，”托马斯法官说，“但我肯定在纽约州北部或西部有你可以打猎的地方...如果你为了狩猎的目的可以有这种不同，具体来说，为什么你不能有一个类似的为第二修正案量身定制的方法，基于纽约市的密度，如果这是一个问题，地铁，那么你有一套不同于纽约州北部的关注点?”

纽约州步枪和手枪协会，全国步枪协会的附属机构提起诉讼一直希望最高法院以6比3的保守多数确认在全州范围内携带枪支进行自卫的广泛权利。

克莱门特坚持认为，第二修正案的文本提供了一个“不仅仅是保留武器，而是携带武器”的保证。

拜登政府的一名律师辩称，几十年来，美国拥有枪支的历史和传统一直限制隐蔽携带。首席副检察长布莱恩·弗莱彻认为，这样的法律“在全国所有地区跨越150年”。“法院面临的问题是，在[各州]采取的所有方法中，这是第二修正案必须取消的吗?”

关于隐藏携带权的辩论正值全国枪支销量持续飙升，枪支暴力死亡人数持续攀升之际。根据独立的国家枪支暴力档案，今年到目前为止，已经有超过35000名美国人被枪杀。

在这种情况下，法院的自由派法官似乎准备投票支持纽约的法律，并确认自由裁量的许可程序。

法庭外，一群枪支暴力受害者和幸存者——包括佛罗里达州帕克兰、俄亥俄州代顿和肯塔基州路易斯维尔大规模枪击事件的代表——举行了一次小型集会，让人们听到他们的声音。亚利桑那州前众议员加贝·吉福兹也向人群发表了讲话。

“今天的辩论清楚地表明，即使是法院最保守的大法官也对赋予枪支游说团体在本案中的最终目标——在任何时候在所有公共场所携带枪支的不受限制的权利——犹豫不决，”Everytown Law的执行董事埃里克·蒂施韦尔(Eric Tirschwell)说。

他说:“法院最终可以通过多种方式来裁决此案，以及裁决事项的细节。“正如大法官们今天听到的那样，这最终关系到当选官员是否能够继续就保护他们的社区做出决定——包括通过限制谁可以在足球场、大学校园和购物中心携带枪支。”

Supreme Court debates gun rights in dramatic two-hour argument over concealed carry, self-defense

The nation's highest court on Wednesday spent nearly two hours wrestling with theconcealed carry of handgunsin public places and discretionary permitting requirements in nearly a dozen states that impose limits in the interest of public safety.

The oral arguments on Second Amendment rights -- the court's most consequential in more than a decade -- focused on a century-oldNew Yorkstate law that requires gun owners to show "proper cause" -- or a specific special need -- to carry a handgun in public for self-defense.

Eight other states have similar "may issue" laws that give local authorities discretion to decide who receives a license based on particularized circumstances. Most states have looser requirements giving otherwise law-abiding gun owners easier ability to carry.

Many of the court's conservative justices appeared skeptical of New York-style regimes that subject a constitutional right to bear arms to the discretion of a government official. At the same time, several raised concerns about public safety if carry restrictions were rolled back too far.

The Second Amendment "is to be interpreted the same way you'd interpret other provisions of the Constitution," said Chief Justice John Roberts. "The idea you need a license to exercise the right is unusual in the context of the Bill of Rights."

"Why isn't it good enough to say, I live in a violent area and I want to be able to defend myself?" asked JusticeBrett Kavanaugh. "That's the real concern, isn't it, with any constitutional right, if it's the discretion of an individual officer, that seems inconsistent with an objective constitutional right."

"There is a history and tradition, and it exists to the present day, of permitting regimes," Kavanaugh added later. "But it's a narrow legal issue of 'shall issue' versus 'may issue' [a permit]."

New York Solicitor General Barbara Underwood vigorously defended the state's "may-issue" law as consistent with the history and tradition of U.S. states enacting reasonable limits on the carrying of firearms in public.

"New York is not an outlier," Underwood argued. "Many ordinary people have licenses." But, she insisted, the Supreme Court itself has ruled that the right to carry a gun is not unlimited.

Less restrictive concealed carry regimes would "multiply the number of firearms carried in high-density places," Underwood said. "Proliferation of arms on subways terrifies a lot of people."

Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Elena Kagan, Amy Coney Barrett, and Stephen Breyer all acknowledged concerns about concealed carry of weapons in public places, each pressing attorney Paul Clement, who represented a group of New York gun owners challenging the law.

"They are dangerous guns," said Justice Stephen Breyer. "In your opinion ... you want no restrictions?"

"We're asking for the [permitting] regime to work the same way for self-defense as it does for hunting," Clement replied.

Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, who have long held an expansive view of the Second Amendment, suggested New York needed to better tailor its requirements to accommodate residents living in less-densely-populated rural areas.

"You can't hunt with a gun in Central Park," said Justice Thomas, "but I'm certain there are places in Upstate or Western New York where you can ... If you can have that difference for the purpose of hunting, specifically, why can't you have a similar tailored approach for the Second Amendment based upon if it's density in New York City, if that's a problem, the subway, then you have a different set of concerns than Upstate New York?"

The New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, an NRA-affiliate, whichbrought the casehas been hopeful that the Court's 6-3 conservative majority would affirm a sweeping right to carry guns outside the home for self-defense across the state.

The text of the Second Amendment offers a guarantee "not just to keep arms, but to bear them," insisted Clement.

An attorney for the Biden administration argued that history and tradition of gun ownership in the US has featured limits on concealed carry for decades. Such laws "span 150 years in all regions of the country," argued Principal Deputy Solicitor General Brian Fletcher. "The question before the court is, of all the approaches [states have] taken, is this one the Second Amendment must take off the table?"

The debate over concealed carry rights comes as gun sales continue to soar across the country and gun violence deaths have continued to climb. More than 35,000 Americans have been killed by guns so far this year, according to the independent National Gun Violence Archive.

In a nod to those circumstances, the court’s liberal justices seemed ready to vote to uphold New York's law and affirm discretionary permitting programs.

Outside the court, a group of gun violence victims and survivors -- including representatives from mass shootings in Parkland, Florida, Dayton, Ohio, and Louisville, Kentucky -- held a small rally to make their voices heard. Former Arizona Rep. Gabby Giffords also addressed the crowd.

"Today’s argument made clear that even the court’s most conservative justices have hesitations about granting the gun lobby its ultimate goal in this case - the unrestricted right to carry guns in all public places at all times," said Eric Tirschwell, executive director of Everytown Law.

"There are a number of ways the court could ultimately decide this case, and the details of its ruling matter," he said. "As the justices heard today, this is ultimately about whether elected officials will continue to be able to make decisions about protecting their communities - including by limiting who can carry guns in football stadiums, university campuses and shopping malls."