The Supreme Court has positioned the Second Amendment squarely on its docket this term, agreeing to hear two cases concerning firearms regulations. This underscores a burgeoning trend in judicial scrutiny regarding the right to bear arms. In this climate, Pete Patterson, a partner at Cooper & Kirk PLLC, and a respected authority on Second Amendment law, shared his insights and experiences in an interview for SCOTUSblog’s series, “A Second Opinion.”
Patterson’s expertise is built over a series of high-profile cases, such as his representation in Snope v. Brown and his participation in nearly 20 appeals related to firearm regulations post the landmark New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen decision. This case notably altered the legal landscape by affirming that the Second Amendment protects public carry rights based on text and historical precedent.
In the intricate legal arena following Bruen, Patterson expounded on the challenges that courts face, particularly with regard to interpreting “common use” and addressing purported historical firearm regulation precedents. One of his recent scholarly contributions articulates how the historical common law on “common use” should shape judicial assessments of modern-day statutes. He argues that many regulations, like blanket bans on semiautomatic rifles such as the AR-15, falter under Heller‘s tests and warrant Supreme Court intervention for clarity and uniformity, as Justice Kavanaugh recently intimated.
Moreover, current debates often involve complexities like delineating legitimate historical firearm prohibitions, a thorny subject since courts must be historically informed without overstepping into judicial policymaking. Patterson describes this evolution as moving toward a “normal science” phase, akin to First Amendment jurisprudence where framework clarity should ultimately stabilize.
Another critical aspect Patterson addresses is the application of the Bruen decision, particularly about facial versus as-applied challenges to firearm laws, such as those related to private property restrictions, and how they’re poised to test the judicial waters soon.
For legal professionals navigating Second Amendment litigation, Patterson’s discourse offers a roadmap, emphasizing the need for a consistent doctrine aligned firmly with the historical compass set forth by the Supreme Court. This ongoing judicial recalibration underlines that the intersection of constitutional rights and public safety remains a pivotal battleground with significant focus expected in forthcoming court sessions.