CBS News
Supreme Court kicks gun cases back to lower courts for new look after Second Amendment ruling
Washington — The Supreme Court on Tuesday ordered lower courts to take another look at challenges to several federal and state firearms restrictions in the wake of its ruling upholding a law that bans people subject to domestic violence restraining orders from having guns.
The cases had been pending before the court for months while it considered the constitutionality of the 30-year-old law that disarmed alleged domestic abusers. In an 8-1 ruling last month, the court found that the Second Amendment allows an individual who poses a credible threat to the safety of others to be banned from having firearms temporarily.
On the heels of that decision, the Supreme Court tossed out lower court rulings invalidating two separate federal firearms restrictions as applied to their individual challengers, as well as a lower court ruling that upheld provisions of a New York law. It sent the cases back to the lower courts for additional proceedings based on its latest ruling.
The federal gun restrictions
The federal laws at issue in the legal battles have been on the books for years, but came under renewed scrutiny in the wake of the Supreme Court’s June 2022 decision that imposed a new framework for evaluating the constitutionality of gun restrictions. In that ruling, the court said that for firearms laws to comply with the Second Amendment, the government must identify historical analogues that show the measure is consistent with the nation’s history and tradition of firearms regulation.
Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
In one of the cases, known as Garland v. Range, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit said a federal law prohibiting convicted felons from having guns was unconstitutional as applied. The challenge to the felon-in-possession ban was brought by Bryan Range, a Pennsylvania man who pleaded guilty in state court to making a false statement about his income to obtain food stamps. Though violators may face up to five years in prison, he was sentenced to three years of probation. Range’s conviction disqualified him from having guns.
Range sued, arguing that the felon disarmament law violates the Second Amendment as applied to him. A federal district court ruled for the government, but the full 3rd Circuit said the Justice Department hadn’t met its burden of showing that applying the law is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearms regulation.
The Biden administration asked the Supreme Court to step in and said the 3rd Circuit’s decision “opened the courthouse doors to an untold number of future challenges by other felons based on their own particular offenses, histories, and personal circumstances.” After the court upheld the law disarming alleged domestic abusers, the Justice Department urged the court to hear either Range’s case or another similar dispute, as well as two others, and decide the constitutionality of the felon-in-possession ban.
Another case known as U.S. v. Daniels involves a federal law that prohibits unlawful drug users of having guns. In April 2022, Patrick Daniels was stopped by police for driving without a license plate. When an officer approached Daniels’ car, he smelled marijuana, and police found butts of joints, a loaded pistol and loaded rifle when searching the vehicle.
Daniels admitted he had used marijuana since high school and smoked about 14 days out of a month. A federal grand jury in Mississippi indicted Daniels for having a gun as an unlawful user of a controlled substance in violation of federal law. He was then convicted after a jury trial and sentenced to 46 months in prison.
While the district court rejected Daniels’ bid to toss out the indictment on the grounds that the gun law was unconstitutional as applied to him, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit reversed that decision and held that the law barring illegal drug users from having guns violated the Second Amendment as applied to Daniels.
No federal appeals court has invalidated the prohibition on its face, and the constitutionality of the firearms prohibition for drug users has divided lower courts. Hunter Biden, President Biden’s son, was convicted of violating the ban last month, and could argue in an appeal that it doesn’t comport with the Second Amendment. His lawyers unsuccessfully sought to have the charge dismissed at an earlier stage in his case, but the trial judge said Hunter Biden could renew his challenge to the law’s constitutionality.
New York’s gun law
The case involving New York’s firearms restrictions, known as Antonyuk v. James, arose after the law at issue was passed in July 2022. The measure requires that a person applying for a license to carry firearms in public must demonstrate “good moral character,” or “having the essential character, temperament and judgment necessary to be entrusted with a weapon and to use it only in a manner that does not endanger oneself or others.”
Applicants for carry licenses also must complete firearms training, meet with a licensing offer for an interview, and submit certain information to the officer, including references who can attest to their “good moral character.”
The package also prohibits firearms in numerous categories of sensitive locations, including courthouses, polling places and public parks, as well as venues like theaters and stadiums. Private properties in the state are also considered “restricted locations” where guns are prohibited, unless the owner posts signage or gives consent.
After the law took effect, a group of six gun owners living in New York challenged its restrictions on firearms in sensitive places and the licensing requirements, arguing they violated the Second Amendment and were in defiance of the Supreme Court’s decision issued two years ago.
A three-judge panel of the 2nd Circuit eventually upheld the good-moral-character requirement and sensitive-place restrictions, finding that the gun owners were unlikely to succeed in their challenge. The gun owners then asked the Supreme Court again to step into the dispute.
The impact of the Supreme Court’s latest Second Amendment ruling on these cases was not immediately clear, but the majority did provide some additional guidance about what founding-era firearms regulations the government can put forth to justify a modern-day restriction under the court’s 2022 framework.
Writing for the court, Chief Justice John Roberts said the historical analogues required by that analysis need not be a “dead ringer” or “historical twin” for a modern-day law. The court also acknowledged that the nation has a long tradition of laws disarming individuals who pose a “clear threat of physical violence” to another.
Justice Clarence Thomas was the sole dissenter in the case, known as U.S. v. Rahimi.
Watch CBS News
Be the first to know
Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.
Getty Images
With rampant inflation over the past couple of years, the Federal Reserve quickly raised interest rates and has held them steady for the past year. Meanwhile, gold prices have been strong recently, with the price of gold per ounce hitting a record of over $2,400 in May. Although gold prices have come down slightly since then, they’re still up over 20% in the past year. Meanwhile, inflation has been showing signs of moderating recently too, although it could still be a while until it reaches the Fed’s 2% target.
If that happens, what could it mean for the price of gold? In some ways, high inflation could help the price of gold, as the precious metal is often purchased to try to hedge against inflation.
See how much a gold investment could cost you here now.
What will happen to the price of gold if inflation hits 2%?
Inflation is only one of multiple factors that can (and have) shaped the price of gold. So, even if it falls, gold could still rise in value for other reasons.
At the same time, high interest rates that are used to try to tame inflation can temper the price of gold, as high interest rates give investors an attractive option for essentially risk-free returns, like by buying Treasuries or even keeping money in a high-yield savings account.
So, some think that gold prices could fall as inflation drops to 2%.
“If and when that occurs, that could potentially deter some demand in gold and might lower the price,” says Alex Ebkarian, COO and co-founder of Allegiance Gold, a gold investing company.
“However, it’s a mistake to just look at the Fed’s reported inflation because it only measures year over year. Looking at the last three-year cumulative compound impact of inflation continues to be evident at the grocery stores and reflective on the price increase of gold,” he adds.
So, in that sense, with gold often being seen as a store of value, gold prices could potentially remain strong even if inflation hits 2%, at least in the beginning of that low inflation period.
Learn more about investing in gold during today’s inflationary cycle now.
Other considerations
Although there’s a case to be made in both directions in terms of how lower inflation could affect the price of gold, many experts see other factors being bigger drivers.
“The price of gold does not follow the inflation rate closely over the short to medium term. Thus, even if the Fed brings inflation down to 2%, there is no way of determining the behavior of the price of gold,” says Roger D. Silk, Ph.D., founder and CEO at Sterling Foundation Management, a wealth management company.
Instead, the price of gold might be influenced by broader economic and geopolitical factors, beyond just inflation.
Some investors, for example, turn to gold as a counter to the dollar, which could potentially weaken due to large government deficits that have been running since fiscal year 2002 across presidential administrations from both parties.
“Considering the current debt level and overall cost of interest expense and on-going de-dollarization movement, and the volatility nature of the market, coupled with some early signs of weaknesses in banks lead by the commercial real estate sector, I expect the reported taming of inflation would have a neutral impact on gold,” says Ebkarian.
Meanwhile, “other forces such as gold’s no-default risk, historical positioning, liquid nature and performance during times of crisis attributes are attracting new strategic investors that are more interested in ownership rather than exposure,” he adds.
The bottom line
At first glance, inflation might seem to move the price of gold, but many other factors are also involved. Thus, if and when the US reaches the Fed’s 2% target, that does not necessarily mean that gold prices will move up or down, as other factors such as government deficits and political instability around the world could influence gold investors who are looking to diversify.
CBS News
These cannibal baby sharks eat their siblings in the womb – and sketches show just how gruesome it can be
As adults, sand tiger sharks are known for being relatively non-aggressive. But as babies, these animals engage in a cannibalistic war with dozens of siblings in which only one survives.
It’s all part of a natural occurrence known as intrauterine cannibalism. Sand tiger sharks are perhaps one of the most well-known species in which this occurs. These sharks are ovoviviparous, meaning that their offspring grow in eggs in the sharks’ uteri until they hatch, at which point, they emerge into the ocean.
“It is survival of the fittest. The strongest one will emerge,” Lizeth Webster, curator of fish and invertebrates at the Long Island Aquarium in New York told CBS News. “The healthiest one will absorb all of the nutrients, not leaving enough for the others, so it will consume others in the womb.”
NOAA/Reproduction and Embryonic Development of The Sand Tiger Shark, Odontaspis Taurus (Rafinesque)
Sand tiger sharks are known for having two uteri. In each one, a female shark will have between 16 and 23 fertilized eggs. But not long after they develop their teeth, the biggest and most advanced of the embryos that’s often the first to hatch will kill and eat all the siblings it shares a uterus with, as well as any leftover yolk sacs. After being in the womb for eight to nine months, two pups – one from each uterus – will make it out into the sea.
“That’s how we get apex predators,” Webster said. “The strongest will survive.”
NOAA/Reproduction and Embryonic Development of The Sand Tiger Shark, Odontaspis Taurus (Rafinesque)
Shark scientists have known about this process for decades. In research published in NOAA’s Fishery Bulletin in 1983, they even provided visual depictions of the process.
In one case, they observed “a large hatched embryo (100 mm) that had attacked and badly damaged (puncture wounds and torn gut) a 51 mm embryo. … It is possible that the 51 mm embryo had not hatched prior to the attack.”
NOAA/Reproduction and Embryonic Development of The Sand Tiger Shark, Odontaspis Taurus (Rafinesque)
That cannibalism, however, meets a hard stop whenever the sharks are officially born. Sand tiger sharks, otherwise known as ragged-tooth sharks and grey nurse sharks, tend to eat herrings, eels, squids, crabs and lobsters, among other animals.
And no, humans aren’t on the list. The animals are known for not being aggressive toward humans, although they will become defensive if necessary. Once they grow, Webster described the animals as “calm.”
“Usually in the wild, they swim in large packs,” she said. “…When they’re in large groups like that they tend to be a lot calmer because they do have to swim in unison with other sharks. They just look like they’re floating and they’re calm.”
And while eating their siblings does help ensure that strong pups are born, it also makes it difficult for the species to survive.
The sharks, which can grow to be up to 10 feet and 500 pounds, according to the Long Island Aquarium, have one of the lowest reproductive rates among all shark species. According to the Aquarium of the Pacific, they only give birth every two years. And that poses a major problem considering the species has reached critically endangered status.
According to the IUCN Red List, populations have been decreasing worldwide, with the Mediterranean population being “locally possibly extinct,” as there have been no records of the shark in the area since 2008. Overall, researchers with the group believe the species has seen a more than 80% decline over the past 74 years “due to levels of exploitation.” Urban and industrial development, overfishing, climate change and severe weather impacting their habitats remain the biggest threats to the species.
