Argument preview: Justices take up battle over New York City gun ban – and the scope of the Second Amendment?

[livingston]

Editor’s Note: An earlier version of this post ran on November 18, 2019, as an introduction to this blog’s symposium on New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York, as well as at Howe on the Court, where it was originally published.
It has been nearly 10 years since the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment right of individuals to keep and bear arms applies fully to state and local governments. When the justices return to the bench next month, they will wade into the Second Amendment fray once again, this time hearing oral argument in a challenge to New York City’s ban on transporting licensed handguns outside the city – including to shooting ranges and second homes. The ban was so restrictive that it seemed unlikely to survive Supreme Court review; the only real question seemed to be whether the justices would issue a narrow ruling that only addressed the constitutionality of the city’s ban, or whether they might instead say more about the broader right to have a gun outside the home. But now it’s not clear whether the justices will reach the merits of the case at all, because the city has ended the ban.

Argument preview: Justices take up battle over New York City gun ban – and the scope of the Second Amendment? - SCOTUSblog

Editor’s Note: An earlier version of this post ran on November 18, 2019, as an introduction to this blog’s symposium on New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York, as well as at Howe on the Court, where it was originally published. It has been nearly 10 years since the Supr

www.scotusblog.com

 

[livingston]

Defending the ban, the city maintains that it does not place any real burden on gun owners’ rights. The city acknowledges that the right to “keep and bear arms” may “imply the right to learn how to handle arms,” but, it maintains, that does not translate into a right to train wherever you want. Rather, the city argues, the government has always “extensively regulated” where, when and how people can train with their guns. For purposes of the Second Amendment, it isn’t important where someone practices shooting, as long as he has a chance to do so. Because there are at least seven shooting ranges in New York City, with at least one in each of the city’s five boroughs, that opportunity is available to all city gun owners. Indeed, federal and state militia generally trained only a few times per year in specific places, and training was “tightly controlled.” The challengers have not provided any evidence that there was a tradition of transporting guns, much less one of transporting guns to second homes, the city concludes.

But even if the rule did burden the challengers’ conduct, the city continues, it would still be constitutional because it is “substantially related to an important government objective” – public safety. And it does not violate the Constitution’s commerce clause, because federal firearms law specifically provides that the right to move between states with a gun hinges on whether you are allowed to have and carry a gun in the states you are traveling between. Putting that aside, only city residents with licenses can use shooting ranges in the city, which actually puts those ranges at a disadvantage. “At the very least,” the city explains, the challengers “have not shown that this regulatory system, considered overall, worked to benefit in-city ranges at the expense of those out of state.”

The justices will vote on the case within a few days after the oral argument

 

[spat]

Defending the ban, the city maintains that it does not place any real burden on gun owners’ rights. The city acknowledges that the right to “keep and bear arms” may “imply the right to learn how to handle arms,” but, it maintains, that does not translate into a right to train wherever you want. Rather, the city argues, the government has always “extensively regulated” where, when and how people can train with their guns. For purposes of the Second Amendment, it isn’t important where someone practices shooting, as long as he has a chance to do so. Because there are at least seven shooting ranges in New York City, with at least one in each of the city’s five boroughs, that opportunity is available to all city gun owners. Indeed, federal and state militia generally trained only a few times per year in specific places, and training was “tightly controlled.” The challengers have not provided any evidence that there was a tradition of transporting guns, much less one of transporting guns to second homes, the city concludes.

But even if the rule did burden the challengers’ conduct, the city continues, it would still be constitutional because it is “substantially related to an important government objective” – public safety. And it does not violate the Constitution’s commerce clause, because federal firearms law specifically provides that the right to move between states with a gun hinges on whether you are allowed to have and carry a gun in the states you are traveling between. Putting that aside, only city residents with licenses can use shooting ranges in the city, which actually puts those ranges at a disadvantage. “At the very least,” the city explains, the challengers “have not shown that this regulatory system, considered overall, worked to benefit in-city ranges at the expense of those out of state.”

The justices will vote on the case within a few days after the oral argument

Any lawyer who could make that argument with a straight face should be disbarred.

 

[Blimey]

The ban is fking stupid and I'm sure even gun haters in NYC Know that. That's why the SCOTUS will shut it down.

But, the odds of SCOTUS reaffirming heller in some manner that prescribes a right to carry in all places and "Hey, we really honestly meant it in 2008", such that SAFE, etc. end up automatically falling are not high. I predict a win for gun rights--but a very limited one.

It's very possible they shut this down and say that as long as gun owners follow other "common sense" laws on travel, then NYC cannot prohibit this.

 

[fresch]

Because they had the guns on them all the time, you fin morons!
Training the Militia would be controlled FOR training; they could shoot guns almost anywhere you fin droolers.

 

[spat]

The ban is fking stupid and I'm sure even gun haters in NYC Know that. That's why the SCOTUS will shut it down.

But, the odds of SCOTUS reaffirming heller in some manner that prescribes a right to carry in all places and "Hey, we really honestly meant it in 2008", such that SAFE, etc. end up automatically falling are not high. I predict a win for gun rights--but a very limited one.

It's very possible they shut this down and say that as long as gun owners follow other "common sense" laws on travel, then NYC cannot prohibit this.

Best we can hope for is a ruling that opens the door for another case to challenge "may issue".

Nothing coming out of this will affect SAFE.

 

[cgrutt]

Any lawyer who could make that argument with a straight face should be disbarred.

Yeah sounds like a complete load of Schiff to me...

 

[cgrutt]

Best we can hope for is a ruling that opens the door for another case to challenge "may issue".

Nothing coming out of this will affect SAFE.

Best we can hope for is they mandate strict scrutiny be applied to all 2A (any A for that matter). That opens the door wide open to striking down many draconian gun laws...

 

[Acer-m14]

Crap Ruth is out of the hospital now

 

[Mr. terzmo]

well...will a ruling have any affect to the law of "previous permission " in order for a current permit holder to carry in NY $hitty ? Outside NY $hitty one with a current carry permit cannot carry. Also...how about out of State carry ?

 

[livingston]

Crap Ruth is out of the hospital now

That never mattered ... All she had to do is blink her eye and they would inform the world of her anti gun vote.

 

[Grimscale]

For purposes of the Second Amendment, it isn’t important where someone practices shooting, as long as he has a chance to do so.

So it is ok to regulate where and when a person can vote, as long as they can vote somewhere.
And, since being able to own a government-approved gun means they can forbid other guns and still be Constitutional, you can only vote for the person they want you to vote for.
Hey, you can still vote, right? So it's Constitutional.

 

[Airborneguy]

It’s good that the city brought up previous courts decisions that government interests apply. That makes it much more likely that scotus will rule against intermediate scrutiny which allows that.

 

[Saltwater60]

I sure hope we get thrown a bone this time around instead of boned up the ass like usual.