Case No. 18-280 | 2d Cir.
Preview by Michael Fischer, Online Editor
In the State of New York, an individual may not possess a firearm without a license. In order to keep a handgun in one’s home, New York citizens must obtain a “premises” license for their specific residence. Under New York City rules, the handgun may not be removed from the premises except under limited circumstances. One circumstance where removal is permissible is transporting handguns directly to and from authorized shooting ranges in New York City. Plaintiffs brought suit in federal district court seeking a declaratory judgement that the restrictions violated their Second Amendment rights.
The district court found that any burdens imposed on the plaintiffs’ rights were modest and that while the New York law regulates their Second Amendment rights, it does not restrict them. The court also found that the law did not violate the fundamental right to travel or the dormant Commerce Clause. The district court’s holding was affirmed by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Plaintiffs subsequently appealed to the United States Supreme Court, which granted certiorari on January 22, 2019. The issue before the Court is whether the New York statute banning the transportation of a licensed, locked, and unloaded handgun to a home or shooting range outside city limits violate the Second Amendment, the Commerce Clause, or the constitutional right to travel.
Petitioners argue that the New York statute directly interferes with their right to keep and bear arms and that Respondents, in defending the law, have characterized this right too narrowly. Reply Brief for Petitioners at 2–7, N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. City of New York, No. 18-280 (U.S. filed Sept. 4, 2019). Furthermore, Petitioners assert that Respondent’s public safety justification cannot survive strict scrutiny since no evidence exists demonstrating that transporting handguns outside of New York City poses an appreciable risk to the public. Id. at 14. Finally, Petitioners claim that the statute violates the Commerce Clause by discriminating against out of state commerce, and implicates the right to travel by directly burdening the egress of certain gun owners. Id. at 21–23.
Respondents counter that Petitioners’ case has been rendered moot by changes in state law which now allow gun owners to transport handguns to shooting ranges outside of New York City. Brief of Respondents at 10, N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. City of New York, No. 18-280 (U.S. filed Aug. 5, 2019). Notwithstanding this point, Respondents allege that the previous statute did not violate the Second Amendment since regulations of the location and manner of firearms training have existed throughout the country’s history. Id. This, Respondents argue, demonstrates that the law did not impose meaningful restrictions on Petitioner’s Second Amendment rights. Id. at 10–11. Lastly, Respondents argue that the regulatory regime did not impermissibly control transactions outside of New York State nor did it penalize individuals for leaving the state. Id. at 11–12.
This is the first major challenge to state legislation concerning the scope of the Second Amendment since Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh joined the Court. In light of the relative infrequency of Second Amendment decisions from the Court, the holding in this case will be instructive as to whether the Court will apply an increasingly expansive interpretation of Second Amendment rights.