Supreme Court hears arguments on scope of gun rights in major Second Amendment case | full audio

Supreme Court hears arguments on scope of gun rights in major Second Amendment case | full audio

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Wednesday for New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, a case challenging a New York gun law that restricts the right to carry a firearm in public.

CBSN is CBS News’ 24/7 digital streaming news service featuring live, anchored coverage available for free across all platforms. Launched in November 2014, the service is a premier destination for breaking news and original storytelling from the deep bench of CBS News correspondents and reporters. CBSN features the top stories of the day as well as deep dives into key issues facing the nation and the world. CBSN has also expanded to launch local news streaming services in major markets across the country. CBSN is currently available on and the CBS News app across more than 20 platforms, as well as the Paramount+ subscription service.

Subscribe to the CBS News YouTube channel:​
Watch CBSN live:​
Download the CBS News app:​
Follow CBS News on Instagram:​
Like CBS News on Facebook:​
Follow CBS News on Twitter:​
Subscribe to our newsletters:​
Try Paramount+ free:

For video licensing inquiries, contact:


  1. Kman Bay on November 6, 2021 at 8:01 pm

    Justice Stephen Breyer sounds like he doesn’t care about the Constitution only about being anti-gun

  2. D S on November 6, 2021 at 8:01 pm

    I guess abc edited some of the good arguments since it’s about a half hour short

  3. W on November 6, 2021 at 8:01 pm

    Gun club range cameras will put you in prison. The police state is thirsty for evidence to prosecute patriots.

  4. Jay Medina on November 6, 2021 at 8:03 pm

    Shall NOT Be Infringed. It doesn’t say "sometimes". It doesn’t say "except when we are afraid of you". It doesn’t say "except when many other people are around". It doesn’t say "except when we think you are dangerous".

  5. Horse Hearsay on November 6, 2021 at 8:03 pm

    If the left were really for womens rights, they’d be pro second amendment.

  6. David Epperson on November 6, 2021 at 8:04 pm

    This is already very close to settled law, from previous SCOTUS decisions.
    District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual’s right to keep and bear arms, unconnected with service in a militia

    US v Miller
    Any firearm ‘of use to the militia’ is protected by the 2nd Amendment.

    Murdock v Pennsylvania
    The state cannot convert a Right into a Privilege and apply a license or a tax to it.

     Marbury v. Madison (1803)
    “A Law repugnant to the Constitution is void.” 
    the U.S. Supreme Court declared an act of Congress to be unconstitutional.

  7. Joe Stetz on November 6, 2021 at 8:06 pm

    OcasioCortez probably has a lot to say… she knows what’s best for Americans

  8. Alexander Rivera on November 6, 2021 at 8:07 pm

    Automatic 5years minimum in prison for carrying a gun!!!

  9. Brad Carss on November 6, 2021 at 8:07 pm

    1:05:05 "Specter of a lot of armed people" Give me a break. Sounds like her personal opinion. She is so naive thinking because there is any amount of LEOs that everything should be just safe as can be. IDIOT!

  10. Kimberly Winters on November 6, 2021 at 8:08 pm

    Even the NRA is regretting their behavior over the years because now they are forced to advocate for the gun nuts and right-wing violent hicks..
    They hate being lumped in with them.

  11. RKBA on November 6, 2021 at 8:08 pm

    If we weren’t intended to have the right to bear outside the home, why did the court state in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857): "And, to keep and carry arms wherever they went,"?

  12. DaRyteJuan on November 6, 2021 at 8:08 pm

    The plaintiffs’ argument could be utterly destroyed with much simpler language than any attorney has uttered heretofore.

    The word “Arms” in the 2nd Amendment is not spelled out. It doesn’t say “firearms,” per se. A spear and a sword are both arms. So are pepper spray and bean-bag guns.

    Also, the 2nd Amendment says nothing about “ammunition.” Constitutionally, you might be able to have all the guns you want, but no ammunition.

    The ongoing battle for the “pro-gun” position is nothing more than a cynical money-grab by gun industry. If the word “Arms” in the 2nd Amendment, why is there a hand-grenade or home-made bomb lobby? 💣 Why can’t a bunch of “law-abiding citizens” get there money together and buy some Abrams tanks with full armaments? I mean, if you’re gonna try to hold off the “tyrannical” US government, you’re gonna need some serious firepower. And why stop there? Why not let these Trump-loving militias have some tactical nuclear weapons?

    Of course, this argument that guns are there to stop the tyranny of the government is ludicrous. Let’s just be honest, just like the tobacco industry wants to sell cigarettes, so does the gun industry want to sell guns and ammo. It’s as simple as that.

  13. Alexander Rivera on November 6, 2021 at 8:09 pm

    #other countries has alot less deaths because civilian can’t own a gun….!

  14. RKBA on November 6, 2021 at 8:12 pm

    It’s absolutely ludicrous to try to use Public Safety or National Security to usurp the Constitution because it was written for the expressed purposes of ensuring the Public Safety and National Security (See the Preamble thereto: they just used different words like, domestic tranquility, general welfare and common defence (sic)).

  15. Xtopher Alan Foster on November 6, 2021 at 8:13 pm


  16. Alexander Rivera on November 6, 2021 at 8:16 pm


  17. RKBA on November 6, 2021 at 8:18 pm

    Unconstitutional usurpations in the past do not justify unconstitutional usurpations currently nor in the future!!!

  18. RKBA on November 6, 2021 at 8:19 pm

    TROJAN HORSE: "Sensitive places"!!! Everywhere will be a sensitive place, including our homes!!!

  19. Joe Stetz on November 6, 2021 at 8:20 pm

    Gun laws create criminals

  20. Sparky on November 6, 2021 at 8:21 pm

    Ya we saw your well regulated militia on Jan.6 on Insurrection Day

  21. Daniel Burke on November 6, 2021 at 8:22 pm

    Gun control only affects law abiding citizens. Criminals don’t follow the law.

  22. notfiveo on November 6, 2021 at 8:22 pm

    Someone gets the jump on you which is most often the case makes a gun pretty much useless.

  23. Make&FixitYourself Projects on November 6, 2021 at 8:26 pm

    Supreme Court is going to uphold the 2nd Amendment of the constitution, as it’s supposed to…. The New York communist regime is to take a hit..

  24. Alexander Rivera on November 6, 2021 at 8:26 pm

    Oh ya!!
    Give a racists a machine gun… and we’ll have to have police posted at Churches , Elementary schools, high schools, concerts, grocery stores, and shopping malls….etc.
    #real talk.

  25. Jose Quinones on November 6, 2021 at 8:26 pm

    I love these sessions

  26. RKBA on November 6, 2021 at 8:27 pm

    Presumptively lawful, by definition, denotes the possibility of presumptively unlawful!!!

  27. michimusician on November 6, 2021 at 8:30 pm

    Lets go 2A. New yorkers should have the same rights law abiding citizens in michigan have. We are equal in rights?

  28. Alexander Rivera on November 6, 2021 at 8:30 pm


  29. Seth Stein on November 6, 2021 at 8:31 pm

    People consistently fail to realize that gun violence is not a gang or illegal dynamic, its a People dynamic.
    As long as the Moral Conduct & Culture of American People continues to decline or be stagnated by prejudices & hatred then gun violence along with every other form of violence will only get worse.
    So you can be pro gun and justified but as long as we continue to ignore our Mental Health & humane Culture, as long as we ignore the spread of commercial imperialism, then gun rights will be just one of many casualties we witness as a result of our more essential failures as a society.
    Fools swat at branches
    Wisdom finds the Root

  30. RKBA on November 6, 2021 at 8:32 pm

    The words/phrases, "in the home," "reasonable," "prohibited places/persons," "with approval of local authorities," "except places where prohibited by government," etc. are NOT found in the 2nd Amendment!!! The Injunctive phrase, "shall not be infringed," however, IS and is translated by Black’s Law, 5th Ed., as "ABSOLUTELY FORBIDDEN to violate." I’d say it’s an absolute right based on that; and, that its inclusion in the BoRs/Constitution, "necessarily takes it off the legislative table" (e.g. Zero governmental Subject Matter Jurisdiction).

  31. Aaron on November 6, 2021 at 8:32 pm

    The SG lied in her brief

  32. Alexander Rivera on November 6, 2021 at 8:32 pm

    #how many times through your entire life did you really needed a gun???
    #100% there’s is no reason for a civilian to own an assault rifle(a machine gun of any kind) period.
    #machine gun of any kind type is only for military purposes only.

  33. Rosa Gonzales on November 6, 2021 at 8:32 pm

    WAKE UP LIBERALS!!!! Throughout history of the world, after the people no longer armed to protect themselves , there will be a genocide by the tyranny government. WAKE UP!!!!

  34. onenikkione on November 6, 2021 at 8:33 pm

    New York’s Solicitor General states the denials are based on "public safety" meaning she thinks that the city will turn into the "wild west with shootouts – she’s delusional. It was pointed out many states have conceal-carry and in the large cities with citizens concealing that scenario is False making it a mute point.

  35. Brian Cross on November 6, 2021 at 8:37 pm

    Halls of JUSTICE ⚖️🗣️🦻 BJC..V.

  36. Brad Carss on November 6, 2021 at 8:38 pm

    1:52 Mic drop.

  37. RKBA on November 6, 2021 at 8:42 pm

    If you actually look at laws such as the Statute of N. Hampton – which only prohibited the carrying of arms "to the terror of the public," – they actually encouraged concealed carry because; how could the public be terrified, if they didn’t know you were armed?

  38. Extra Extra on November 6, 2021 at 8:43 pm

    The second amendment is alive and well

  39. Educated Citizen on November 6, 2021 at 8:43 pm

    Live NOW! Attorneys Mike G and Rich Roberts talking about Supreme Court Hearings.

  40. Sean Zehner on November 6, 2021 at 8:43 pm

    Thanks for all the ads for something that is in the public domain

  41. michaelo1492 on November 6, 2021 at 8:45 pm

    If I have a valid drivers license issued from my State that allows me to drive in EVERY STATE, then why if I have a carry license issued by that same State why is it treated differently ?

  42. Mike B. on November 6, 2021 at 8:49 pm

    Clement says he could give up carrying on a subway. This was an abysmal concession. The constitutional right has to exist not just in the destination but in the entire travel. You can’t have free access to your right only in a spot of the state’s choosing and only how they decide you can exercise it. That’s the equivalent of saying you can attend any church you want but you can’t have religious material on the subway. How would you get to church? We would never allow a law that says a Catholic has to apply for a permit and be a permit holder to attend mass. We certainly would never ban the carrying of a bible on a subway.

  43. Sahih KMT El on November 6, 2021 at 8:52 pm

    hashtag militiaisfree

  44. Damian on November 6, 2021 at 8:52 pm

    Most likely NY (and NJ) subjective unequal “may issue” permit schemes will be found to be un-constitutional, SCOTUS decision in 2022, (nysrpa v corlett/bruen).

    IF, any permit scheme is to exist at all it must use equal, objective standards ie; “shall issue”.

    The historical fact is neither NY or NJ can be trusted to protect and defend this right, so “Constitutional Carry” (22 States thus far) is the real solution.

    The 2nd Amendment in The Bill of Rights to our US Constitution, GUARANTEES every US Citizen has a RIGHT TO KEEP (have) AND BEAR (carry) ARMS. Other wording in 2A “Militia” any able bodied male, service in a Militia is NOT a requirement, it is an Individual right (not collective), “Regulated” means equipped, in proper working order NOT gov rules “Shall not be infringed” means what it says. 14th Amendment guarantees equality!

    The right to keep and bear arms was not given to us by the government, rather it is a pre-existing right of “the people” affirmed in The Bill of Rights.

    If it were all about “safety”, then surely the elected officials would require Eddie Eagle (or any!) gun safety program teaching children what to do if they encounter a gun 1) Stop 2) Don’t touch! 3) Run away 4) Tell a grown up ought to be taught in public schools, it’s not.

    See DC v Heller, McDonald v Chicago

    Bonus info, to those folks who have been sold a story about “assault weapon”, see assaultweapon (dot) info

  45. Alexander Rivera on November 6, 2021 at 8:53 pm

    #REAL TALK!!!

  46. Ask Elvis on November 6, 2021 at 8:53 pm


  47. RKBA on November 6, 2021 at 8:55 pm

    The 14th Amendment prohibits the States from "abridging" our rights/immunities. The SCOTUS’ own, oft cited, definition of "to bear arms" includes concealed carry, to wit: "…, or in the clothing or in a pocket,"! Reducing our right to ONLY "open" or "concealed" is "abridgement"!!!

  48. Marc Stephens on November 6, 2021 at 8:56 pm

    This is from my firearm argument at the Supreme Court in the case titled Marc Stephens vs Edward Jerejian. They don’t want the public to know about my argument which was deleted from the internet, see link below. The case New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen is "BS" because the Supreme Court already ruled we can carry in public..see below:

    In a line of decisions, however, the Supreme Court has recognized that a right to keep and bear arms in public does exist under the Constitution. Quoting Heller, “At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.” See Johnson 161; Webster; T. Sheridan, A Complete Dictionary of the English Language (1796); 2 Oxford English Dictionary 20 (2d ed. 1989) (hereinafter Oxford). When used with “arms,” however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose—confrontation. In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998) , in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, Justice Ginsburg wrote that “[s]urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment … indicate[s]: ‘wear, bear, or carry … upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose … of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’ ” Id., at 143 (dissenting opinion) (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 214 (6th ed. 1998)). We think that Justice Ginsburg accurately captured the natural meaning of “bear arms.”

  49. Brad Carss on November 6, 2021 at 8:56 pm

    56:06 Here is where AG puts one in NY’s foot. There is discrimination based on population density. 58:44 more stupidity. THIS IS DONE! FREE CALIFORNIA AND NEW JERSEY AFTER THIS!