The Supreme Court agreed on Tuesday, Jan. 22 to hear New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. New York. Gun rights activists are hoping to eliminate a NYC law banning travel with a firearm outside the city. With gun rights cases popping up all over the federal appellate map, the speculation is that the Court may use this one to establish clear rules about which state and local restrictions are constitutionally permissible.
Everytown For Gun Safety
In New York City, one common sense gun regulation is that a person may not take a lawfully owned firearm out of town. Lawfully owned and registered handguns are like prisoners and may not be taken out of the city. This does not mean “carrying” it on one’s person, which is impossible to get permission for unless you’re a celebrity or are rich enough to bribe the politicians. Even if a New Yorker was willing to disassemble a firearm completely and lock the parts up separately, they could not leave the city with it. The only place one is permitted to have the gun is in their home, or one of the seven shooting ranges the city authorizes for its 8.5 million people.
That doesn’t sit well for the plaintiffs. Some want to take their guns to their country houses on the weekends for the benefit of security there. Others simply wish to drive to a shooting range that is conveniently located.
Certiorari Granted
The Supreme Court met Tuesday, not to hear cases but issue orders, including granting the Association’s petition. The gun rights group lost at every lower court as the case made its way through the demonstrably liberal Second Circuit. Will the Supreme Court rule differently?
“In 2008, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to have a handgun at home for self-defense. Two years later, the justices made clear that this right also applies against state and local governments. Since then the Supreme Court has repeatedly declined to say anything more about how far states and cities can go in restricting gun rights…”
That’s the legal landscape as stated by Court expert Amy Howe. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court’s refusal to give more bright-line rules for the lower courts to follow has led to much mischief by judges, too many of whom are happily bending over backward to uphold gun restrictions. [perfectpullquote align=”left” bordertop=”false” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=”24″]…the gun grabbers are out in force, using anti-Trump momentum to aid their anti-gun agenda.[/perfectpullquote]
Whether it’s outlawing standard capacity magazines in New Jersey, prohibiting foster parents from owning firearms, or the new nationwide bump-stock ban, the gun grabbers are out in force, using anti-Trump momentum to aid their anti-gun agenda. Coupling that momentum along with sympathy and admiration for the student massacre survivors is yielding results as we see more and more attempts at all levels of government to frustrate those who wish to keep and bear arms.
Calling Justice Roberts
The Supreme Court’s failure to exercise judicial leadership in previous cases has resulted in anything but a consistent application of judicial review to gun control. An ideal result from the pro-gun side would be for the Court to apply a strict scrutiny test to the law, its most stringent standard of review, and announce that all such gun regulations must be held to the same test. That’s the big fight here and the one gun rights groups are hoping will go their way given the current composition of the Supreme Court.
The long-suffering residents of Blue America will have to wait a while for a lifeline from the Court, however. This case will likely not be argued until the fall, and a decision may not be made until 2020.
