On December 2, the Supreme Court will hear arguments on a major gun rights case for the first time in almost a decade. The case was brought in 2013 by the New York Pistol and Rifle Association, an advocacy group located outside of Albany, against New York City. The association argues that a New York City restriction that prevented licensed gun owners from taking their firearms outside the city violated the Second Amendment.
After the Supreme Court agreed to take the case thisJanuary, New York City repealed the relevant restriction, hoping that the high court would drop the case. It hasnt and could still issue a ruling with broad Second Amendment implications.
The Supreme Court has been virtually silent on gun rights since it established that the Second Amendment includes the right to bear arms in the home in District of Columbia v. Heller, a watershed decision from 2008. But its inertia has frustrated pro-gun advocates who want clarification on the many questions left unanswered in Heller: Does the Second Amendment protect the right to carry guns outside the home? What kinds of firearms are covered by the right to bear arms?
Since Heller, the court has shifted further to the right, but this doesnt mean the petitioners will win. Thats partly because the gun restriction that prompted the suit is no longer law, which could render the entire case moot.
To help us understand exactly what New York State Pistol and Rifle Association v. City of New York means for the law, The Trace spoke to Joseph Blocher, a legal scholar who co-directs the Center for Firearms Law at the Duke University School of Law. Professor Blocher also assisted with briefing for the District of Columbia in the Heller case.
This interview has been lightly edited for clarity and length.
Olivia Li: What is this case about?
Joseph Blocher: The Pistol and Rifle Association is suing over a restriction in New York Citys gun license that prevented gun owners from transporting their firearms outside city limits to a second home or gun range. The association says that the restriction referred to as a transport ban violated the Second Amendment right to bear arms, as well as the constitutional right to travel. There are a lot of different ways this case could go, but it could end up being a pretty big deal.
How are the constitutional questions in this case different than Heller? And how has the composition of the court evolved?
Heller was about whether there was a constitutional right to have a gun inside your home. The Supreme Court said there was, and that the core right in the Second Amendment was to keep an arm in the home for self defense.
This case, however, involves rules and conduct outside the home. Here, the court will be considering whether there is a Second Amendment right to transport your weapon from your home to another place where you have a right to have the gun, like a shooting range. The line between the home and public space has been a battle line in Second Amendment cases since Heller.
This case is also different from Heller in the sense that the court has changed a lot since Justice [Antonin] Scalia penned the majority opinion in 2008. Justice Scalia has been replaced by Justice [Neil] Gorsuch, and Justice [Anthony] Kennedy was replaced by Justice [Brett] Kavanaugh. Many people believe that Kennedy was the swing vote in Heller, and that he only agreed to sign onto Scalias opinion if it included language that was friendly to reasonable gun regulations. And Kavanaugh and Gorsuch are stronger on gun rights than Kennedy was. The associations case will be heard by a much more conservative, pro-gun court.
Why hasnt the court taken a Second Amendment case in so long?
There werent enough votes to take up gun cases! You need four justices to grant cert [when the Supreme Court agrees to hear a case]. Its likely that Kavanaugh and Gorsuch made the difference here. Before they joined, the Court declined many opportunities to hear Second Amendment cases, including ones about public carry.
But gun rights lawyers have been begging the Supreme Court for years to hear a Second Amendment case. They argue that the Supreme Court has stood idly by while lower federal courts disrespect the right to bear arms by upholding too many gun regulations. Justice [Clarence] Thomas shares this opinion. He has chided his fellow justices for not supervising lower courts on the Second Amendment.
What do the petitioners want in this case?
The petitioners want to be able to transport their guns from within New York City limits to an out-of-city gun range or second home.
Its clear that the association thinks this case is also about the right to bear arms outside the home, not just transport them. But New York Citys regulation only addressed the transport of guns between places. Gun rights groups have tried to attack restrictions on public carry in other cases, but the Supreme Court never wanted to get involved.
What has happened in this case up to this point?
The association lost its case in a federal district court in 2015. And it lost again in 2018, when an appellate court ruled that New York Citys regulation was constitutional because it served New York Citys public safety goals. The association asked the Supreme Court to reconsider that decision in September of 2018.
Theres another interesting piece to this: The New York City Police Department repealed the transport ban in July of 2019. That same month, New York State passed a law that says all cities within the state must allow gun permit holders to transport their weapons to second homes or gun ranges.
If New York City repealed the law, why is this case still going forward?
The association is saying that New York City only repealed the transport ban because it was afraid of how the Supreme Court might rule. But normally, when a person bringing a lawsuit asks for something, and she gets it, the case is over. In legal terms, this is called mootness, because theres no longer an issue to resolve. Courts should not hear cases that are moot.
There are some exceptions to this rule. For example, you wouldnt want a defendant to stop trespassing as soon as a lawsuit is filed just to get the case dismissed, only to start trespassing again. However, in this case, theres no danger of that happening. Remember, New York State passed a law that prohibits New York City from re-instituting its transport ban.
How might the court rule? And what are some potential consequences?
There is a range of possible outcomes, but its helpful to think of them in two buckets. First, the court could dismiss the case as moot, because theres nothing the court could do to put the petitioners in a better position than theyre already in. They are free to travel with firearms outside New York City. Second, the justices could say the case should live on, and they will try to figure out whether the transport ban violates the Second Amendment.
Within this second bucket, there are a few options. The court could agree with the reasoning of the lower court and hold that New York Citys regulation does not unconstitutionally burden gun rights. This preserves the status quo.
However, the Supreme Court could instead conclude that the Second Amendment protects the transport of guns to specific locations, as well as the right to bear arms in the home. But such a decision doesnt necessarily turn the tides. The court could simply say that this particular regulation in New York City goes outside the bounds of reasonable gun laws. Because no other city has a rule like New Yorks and New York took its own law off the books this is a narrow result that changes literally nothing on the ground.
Another option: The Supreme Court could issue a much broader ruling where the justices say that theres a right to public carry. The Supreme Court has never before announced that the Second Amendment covers the right to bear arms in public, although most lower courts have held or assumed otherwise.
Finally, the Supreme Court could change the way lower courts analyze Second Amendment cases. Right now, when a gun rights advocate challenges a firearm law, the courts try to figure out if the gun law is specifically designed to serve public safety goals. In the associations case, the Supreme Court could announce a much more originalist test, one that requires courts to find a particular historical basis for modern-day gun regulations. This change could make cases more difficult for governments who want to defend firearm regulations.
We talked about how the courts composition has changed a lot since Heller. The world outside the Supreme Court has changed a great deal, too. Weve seen an increase in mass shootings and gun violence, as well as more social activism on gun reform. Will the justices be affected by this?
Thats a really fair question, and its one that comes up in every case, not just gun rights cases: How should the Supreme Court respond to public opinion, if it should at all? And I dont think I have the answer to that. What I can say is that all of the justices in Heller recognized the problem of gun violence in the United States. Justice Scalia even wrote at the end of his opinion that gun violence was a serious problem. That was 2008. Sandy Hook, Orlando, Vegas, and Parkland all postdate Heller.
Who do you think will win?
I think the New York State Pistol and Rifle Association has already won this case, because New York City repealed its transport ban. The association has gotten everything it has asked for, and thats precisely why I believe the court should dismiss this case as moot, no matter what the justices think about the Second Amendment.
When will we get a decision?
If the court dismisses the case simply because New York City already repealed the regulation, then we could get a decision very quickly. If the court actually tries to figure out whether the New York City regulation violated the Second Amendment, well likely be waiting longer. But its really hard to say.
Do you think the Supreme Court will take more Second Amendment cases in the future?
I think if the court dismisses this case on procedural grounds, theres a good chance it will take another Second Amendment case soon, maybe even by the end of this term.
Link:
SCOTUS Is Hearing Its First Big Gun Case in 9 Years. Heres How It Might Play Out. - The Trace
- Civics education: Learn the basics of why the Second Amendment exists - Tennessean - May 1st, 2024 [May 1st, 2024]
- The Future of the Second Amendment - Berkeley Law - April 18th, 2024 [April 18th, 2024]
- Mental Health Firearms Bill Divides Second Amendment Supporters in State House - NH Journal - April 18th, 2024 [April 18th, 2024]
- Biden Administration Unlawfully Expands Background Checks on Firearms Sales - Kevin Cramer - April 18th, 2024 [April 18th, 2024]
- The Second Amendment and 18-to-20-Year-Olds - Reason - March 29th, 2024 [March 29th, 2024]
- Chatbots like crime, hate firearms: A Second Amendment study - Washington Examiner - March 29th, 2024 [March 29th, 2024]
- OK: Oppose H.J.R. 1034, Unless Amended! | GOA - Gun Owners of America - March 29th, 2024 [March 29th, 2024]
- Republicans blast Biden admin's 'Red Flag Operation' as one that will 'violate' Second Amendment rights - Fox News - March 29th, 2024 [March 29th, 2024]
- Gordon Signed Four Second Amendment Bills, Vetoed Another - WyoToday.com - March 29th, 2024 [March 29th, 2024]
- A new resource center in the DOJ has a lot of people worried about their Second Amendment rights - Tri-State Alert - March 29th, 2024 [March 29th, 2024]
- 'It Has Everything to Do With Race': Protesters Clash Outside Kyle Rittenhouse Event - Yahoo News UK - March 29th, 2024 [March 29th, 2024]
- Governor signs firearm bills, vetoes bill to repeal gun-free zones - Buckrail - March 29th, 2024 [March 29th, 2024]
- FISA and the Second Amendment: Gun Owners Beware - RealClearPolicy - February 3rd, 2024 [February 3rd, 2024]
- Second Amendment protects the rest | Commentary | norfolkdailynews.com - Norfolk Daily News - February 3rd, 2024 [February 3rd, 2024]
- Ricketts Signs Brief to Defend Gun Owners and Second Amendment - Rural Radio Network - February 3rd, 2024 [February 3rd, 2024]
- Dems bow to local control on guns then take it away | BRAUCHLER - coloradopolitics.com - February 3rd, 2024 [February 3rd, 2024]
- Augusta County Second Amendment guy wants to protect schoolkids from books? - Augusta Free Press - February 3rd, 2024 [February 3rd, 2024]
- The 2nd Amendment is not about Hunting - WIBC - Indianapolis News & Politics - October 27th, 2023 [October 27th, 2023]
- Opinion: Protecting Our Second Amendment Rights in St. Louis ... - The Missouri Times - October 27th, 2023 [October 27th, 2023]
- Statement by Vice President Kamala Harris on the Mass Shooting in ... - The White House - October 27th, 2023 [October 27th, 2023]
- Letter: Second Amendment matters more than ever - Quad-City Times - October 27th, 2023 [October 27th, 2023]
- The Supreme Court is seriously considering whether domestic ... - Vox.com - October 27th, 2023 [October 27th, 2023]
- Letter urging House Speaker to act on gun violence sent hours prior ... - Woodland Daily Democrat - October 27th, 2023 [October 27th, 2023]
- Vermont: Gun-Controllers Are Abandoning Their Rural Roots - NRA ILA - October 27th, 2023 [October 27th, 2023]
- Foundation prepares to disburse roughly $32 million in legal aid ... - The Florida Bar - October 27th, 2023 [October 27th, 2023]
- Critics Sock Sean Hannity Over His Bizarre Personal 'Plan' For Mass ... - Yahoo! Voices - October 27th, 2023 [October 27th, 2023]
- Second Amendment Roundup: Fusillade of Amicus Briefs Filed in Rahimi - Reason - October 12th, 2023 [October 12th, 2023]
- 12 Defensive Gun Uses Bare Absurdity of Attacking Gun Rights - Daily Signal - October 12th, 2023 [October 12th, 2023]
- Horrific Attack In Israel Shows Critical Importance Of Second Amendment In America | David Hookstead - Outkick - October 12th, 2023 [October 12th, 2023]
- OPINION: Second Amendment rights deserve protection - The ... - Stanly News & Press - October 12th, 2023 [October 12th, 2023]
- Noel Hudson: What, exactly, was the well-regulated militia? - VTDigger - October 12th, 2023 [October 12th, 2023]
- Berkshire residents and officials join the debate at the statehouse ... - Berkshire Eagle - October 12th, 2023 [October 12th, 2023]
- Old gun controls that were constitutionally repealed are not precedents for modern gun control - Reason - October 7th, 2023 [October 7th, 2023]
- Rahimi: The Case That Might Turn the Court Even More Extreme on Guns - The New Republic - October 7th, 2023 [October 7th, 2023]
- Second Amendment proponents fear public health emergencies ... - The Statehouse File - October 7th, 2023 [October 7th, 2023]
- UGA political groups debate the Second Amendment at political ... - Red and Black - October 7th, 2023 [October 7th, 2023]
- From the Second Amendment to OxyContin Settlements, Here Are ... - WTTW News - October 7th, 2023 [October 7th, 2023]
- Goldwater Institute Urges Supreme Court to Respect Second ... - The Creative Corner - October 7th, 2023 [October 7th, 2023]
- I carry a firearm daily. Second Amendment rights are not absolute. - Daily Kos - October 7th, 2023 [October 7th, 2023]
- Free Lecture - To Trust the People with Arms: The Supreme Court ... - Buckeye Firearms Association - October 7th, 2023 [October 7th, 2023]
- Federal Judge Enjoins Several Maryland Restrictions on Carrying ... - Reason - October 7th, 2023 [October 7th, 2023]
- Guest columnist Lee Armstrong: Taking 2nd Amendment to extremes - GazetteNET - August 26th, 2023 [August 26th, 2023]
- Analysis: ACLU Warns of Government Overreach in Second ... - The Reload - August 26th, 2023 [August 26th, 2023]
- Madison's Militia: The Hidden History of the Second Amendment, by ... - Shepherd Express - August 26th, 2023 [August 26th, 2023]
- Massachusetts Judge Rules Law Against Carrying Guns Across ... - The Reload - August 26th, 2023 [August 26th, 2023]
- It's Not Hard to Tell Good Guy From Bad Guy, as 12 More Defensive ... - Heritage.org - August 26th, 2023 [August 26th, 2023]
- NRA-ILA Files Friend of the Court Brief Urging the Eighth Circuit to ... - NRA ILA - August 26th, 2023 [August 26th, 2023]
- Panhandling ordinance amendments pass first Council vote - Mountain Xpress - August 26th, 2023 [August 26th, 2023]
- Florida's New Concealed Carry Law: What You Need to Know - Hernando Sun - August 26th, 2023 [August 26th, 2023]
- Why did PragerU lie about being approved in Texas schools? - Reckon - August 26th, 2023 [August 26th, 2023]
- No longer a cold war, the Tennessee House and Senate are not ... - News Channel 5 Nashville - August 26th, 2023 [August 26th, 2023]
- What's News, Breaking: Tuesday, August 22, 2023 - Brooklyn Daily Eagle - August 26th, 2023 [August 26th, 2023]
- Sparse turnout for gun rights rally with Kyle Rittenhouse after Michigan gun reform laws signed Michigan Advance - Michigan Advance - July 21st, 2023 [July 21st, 2023]
- Tom Huckin: A misinterpretation of the Constitution leads to disastrous consequences - Salt Lake Tribune - July 21st, 2023 [July 21st, 2023]
- Debate on Second Amendment | News, Sports, Jobs - Williamsport Sun-Gazette - July 21st, 2023 [July 21st, 2023]
- Sorry, Gov. Newsom, but Citizens Want to Use Guns to Defend ... - Heritage.org - July 21st, 2023 [July 21st, 2023]
- D-Wave Quantum Inc. Enter into the Limited Waiver and Second Amendment to Loan and Security Agreement with PSPIB Unitas Investments II Inc -... - July 21st, 2023 [July 21st, 2023]
- Federal Judge Rejects Lawsuit to Uphold Texas Suppressor Law for ... - The Texan - July 21st, 2023 [July 21st, 2023]
- Governor's Council approves all 7 of Healey's pardon ... - WBUR News - July 21st, 2023 [July 21st, 2023]
- Jonah Goldberg: Why July is the cruelest month for GOP presidential ... - The Winchester Star - July 21st, 2023 [July 21st, 2023]
- Second Amendment Roundup: U.S. Seeking Cert on Prohibited Persons % - Reason - May 30th, 2023 [May 30th, 2023]
- 2nd Amendment Quotes for Hot Topics - Everyday Power - May 30th, 2023 [May 30th, 2023]
- ICYMI: Buffalo News Editorial: Gun Laws and a More Sensible ... - ny.gov - May 30th, 2023 [May 30th, 2023]
- Opinion | Prince William needs gun-free zones - The Washington Post - May 30th, 2023 [May 30th, 2023]
- Second Federal Judge Expands Block on Biden Pistol-Brace Ban as ... - The Reload - May 30th, 2023 [May 30th, 2023]
- Editorial: Mayor's order of support for trans citizens contrasts with the ... - St. Louis Post-Dispatch - May 30th, 2023 [May 30th, 2023]
- Simple answer isn't workable - Las Vegas Sun - May 30th, 2023 [May 30th, 2023]
- DeSantis and the Road to the White House - The Media Line - May 30th, 2023 [May 30th, 2023]
- Should gun stores be allowed near schools? These parents are ... - Reckon - May 30th, 2023 [May 30th, 2023]
- Hawaii Agrees to Drop Baton Ban After Losing Court Fight - The Reload - May 30th, 2023 [May 30th, 2023]
- Demise of S.F. exaggerated. It's still a great city to visit - San Francisco Chronicle - May 30th, 2023 [May 30th, 2023]
- ESAs consult to amend technical standards on the mapping of ... - ESMA - May 30th, 2023 [May 30th, 2023]
- 'Not tools of self-defense': Ferguson makes case for Washington's ... - The Columbian - May 30th, 2023 [May 30th, 2023]
- Lawrence ODonnell Airs Old Clip of Republican Chief Justice Calling the Second Amendment a Fraud on the American Public - Mediaite - March 31st, 2023 [March 31st, 2023]
- Marshall University Prof: Cops and Vets Earn Their Second Amendment Rights Through Months of Training - The Truth About Guns - February 28th, 2023 [February 28th, 2023]
- Interpretation: The Second Amendment | Constitution Center - January 27th, 2023 [January 27th, 2023]
- Senate panel okays Tax Laws (Second Amendment) Bill: Fixed tax scheme gets nod to bring 2m retailers into tax net - The News International - December 23rd, 2022 [December 23rd, 2022]
- Gohmert: Without a change to how children are taught, 'We're going to have to get rid of the Second Amendment' - Fox News - December 18th, 2022 [December 18th, 2022]
- Minim, Inc. and Cadence Connectivity, Inc. Enter Second Amendment to Loan and Security Agreement with Silicon Valley Bank - Marketscreener.com - December 18th, 2022 [December 18th, 2022]
- Opinion: Let's talk about repealing the Second Amendment - The Connecticut Mirror - December 12th, 2022 [December 12th, 2022]