New York Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. vs. City of New York, New York
Lower Courts Decisions
According to Liptak (688), a lawsuit filed by the New York Rifle and Pistol Association Inc. in collaboration with several gun owners against the City of New York to the US District Courts for the Southern District complained of restrictions on taking their guns out of the City for various purposes. They argued out that these restrictions to go out of City for shooting competitions, shooting ranges or to homes outside the City that they owned were too pervasive (Mogilnicki, Eric and Schultz 1). Additionally, as Kindall states, they pointed out that these restrictions were contrary to the Second Amendment of the United States constitution and therefore, was a direct violation of their stipulated rights. Further, they pointed out that the City failed to honor their rights to travel as well as the Dormant Commerce Clause which restricts prejudice instituted on interstate and international trade (Mogilnicki et al.). Retrospectively, the District Courts of New York City ruled against the plaintiff’s demands stating that the state was accomplishing its dictated mandate of controlling gun use as the Supreme Court had earlier ruled out in the McDonald v Chicago case. The courts acknowledged the City’s compelling interest to uphold public safety by restricting firearm transport (Howe). Also, according to Howe, the Court recognized the state’s efforts to limit citizen’s use of firearms purchased outside the City, which was also another contributing strategy focused on maintaining public safety. The petitioners were dissatisfied by this ruling and sought a certiorari from the US Second Circuit Court of Appeals which affirmed the District Courts’ ruling (Mogilnicki et al.). In their argument, (Howe), the Court of appeals presented that the law played a vital role in governing and ensuring public safety through such regulations on firearm transport. At the same time, they reflected on the Heller and McDonald case, resenting that despite that, the citizens were allowed to possess firearms; it was only for self-defense in their homes and not for otherwise transporting outside the City (Howe). It confided on the efforts of the City’s immeasurable burden to show a balance between its rules and ensuring the safety of the public (Howe). Further, the petitioners were dissatisfied and sought the Supreme Court’s certiorari for injunctive relief on the issue to challenge the Second Circuit’s Decisions.
Supreme Court’s Majority Decisions
After granting the plaintiff’s –New York Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. and associate gun owners- the Supreme Court majority decision failed to honor their quest and rendered their claim to be moot. In full recognition of the Second Amendment provisions on gun ownership, the Supreme Court stated that it was only limited for personal defense at homes only. The Court noted that after the granting of certiorari (Liptak 688), the City amended its firearm licensing statute allowing the citizens to transport firearms to shooting ranges, competitions, or the second homes. In light of this amendment and the continued pursuit of injunctive release by the petitioners (Stempel 704), the Court ruled that the case was irrelevant. Stempel (704) indicates that the petitioners’ further arguments reflected on case damages by the District Courts and other restrictions that would hinder them from making stops or coffees on the way. Majority of the Justices confided with the per curiam of the previous courts that had dismissed the case due to its preemptive intention to undermine the gun control laws (Stempel 704). The Supreme Court had whatsoever no decision to extend the Second Amendment’s rights since they would undo the efforts made to ensure public safety. The Court’s decision was also influenced by the apparent mass shootings that had occurred in the preceding periods during the proceedings, for instance, the El Paso massacre in Texas in 2019, which claimed a couple of lives of innocent citizens.
Additionally, (Barnes), there were similar amicus briefs presented by Congress members that urged the Court to consider the case obsolete. In light of these impending issues, the Court’s issued the decision per Curiam collectively stating the mootness of the case (Howe). However, Justice Kavanaugh, despite agreeing with the majority’s decision, he instead confided with the dissention presented by other Justices.
Supreme Court Decision: Dissenting Opinion
As Blackman notes, joined by Justice Gorsuch and Justice Thomas, Justice Alito offered a dissenting decision regarding the case being obsolete. He stated that the amended City ordinance did not provide the petitioners the satisfying relief they sought. Charles (125) indicates that he recognized the argument put across by the plaintiffs that they had unrestricted ownership of guns through the Second Amendment as premises license holders. Therefore they were allowed to access shooting ranges and competitions and carry the same arms to the second homes they owned (Blackman). In light of this, Justice Alito exhibited a violation of constitutionally-stipulated rights, which was an act against the US laws (Charles 125).
Further, he expounded on the legal inadequacy of the coverage of the City laws. As pointed earlier by the defense counsel in opposition to the petitioners’ claim on -restriction to access bathrooms and take coffee- the attorney stated that the citizens were allowed to have bathrooms breaks and any other necessary but reasonable stop (Charles 125). In light of this argument, Justice Alito pointed out the failure of a critical explanation of the ‘reasonable necessary stop’ and impedingly judged this as an act of unclarity of a law. He indicated that the Court under whatsoever circumstance had to ensure justice was served to the prevailing party, or else the Court would face a reprisal due to focusing on the political influence rather than interpreting the law appropriately. More so, (Barnes) notes he criticized the reproach method applied by the Democrat Senators to urge the Court to dismiss the case sating that it is a constitutional mandate for the Court to ensure justice prevails in its area of jurisdiction.
Further, (Charles 125), after expressing the unclarity of the transcending City law, he demonstrated the contrariety between the new State laws, which prevented the City from directly penalizing citizens when they made trips to ranges or competition shootings outside New York. Due to this, he expressed that New York citizens were subjected to restrictions with undetermined meanings (Mogilnicki et al.). Therefore, he ruled that even though the plaintiffs had got most of what they had anticipated, not all of it was still at their disposure thus;, he rendered the case not yet dead. Additionally, he pointed out that if the Court were to hold that section 38 of the New York Restriction Rights had violated the Second Amendment, the City would have toward damages to the petitioners (Mogilnicki et al.). He argued that the lower courts had narrowly interpreted the Heller and McDonald cases that the Supreme Court had ruled on earlier. In this instance, he recognized the many events that cost the petitioner’s chances for competition. For example, a Romolo Colantone, a licensed premise holder who had registered for a match, was forced to pull out due to the restrictive laws. Thus, he recommended that the case was still arguable.
Significance
Stempel (704) indicates that the case is a representation of the ongoing war on gun restriction in the current US society. It manifests the community perception of their rights towards accessing and owning firearms, for instance, the gun holders and rifle associations and the contrary laws against such rights (Kindall). According to the opinions conveyed by the Supreme Court justices (Stempel 704), they signify the impact of normative rights of unrestricted gun access and the adversarial situations that may arise from lack of such restrictions. More importantly, the majority opinion reflects on the predetermined efforts by various states to ensure public safety under gun control laws (Howe). Further, it is based on past predicaments that have been prevalent in the country; for example, the rampant mass shootings over the past decade as a result of increased gun access (Stempel 704). More so, the opinion measures the extent of increased mass murders and exhibits its intention not to extend the Second Amendment mandate on rights of firearm access.
On the other hand, Liptak (688) observes that the dissenting opinion reflects on the importance of granting full justice to the prevailing parties as per the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. In this light, it aims at ensuring the injunctive relief sought by the petitioners is satisfactorily fulfilled (Liptak 688). More importantly, it emphasizes the need for implementation of agreeable laws that are well defined, clear, and that may not induce controversy upon their enactment.
Thoughts
In the forefront arguments conveyed by both the Supreme Court and the District Courts, I think the applicability of these phenomena should prevail in all justice departments. For instance, the maintenance of public safety, which is a priority mandated to every City authority, should be acceptable to all citizens. It is obsolete to push up allegations against such effort, especially during this decade of domestic terrorism prevalent in the current US society. Additionally, I think the arguments conveyed by the dissenting Justices are essential during decision making and enactment of recognized laws and regulations. In this instance, states must be conversant with the need for clearly defined rules that are agreeable to prevent the rise of controversies against them that may further result in unapparent lawsuits. I think this case is a perfect instance to emphasize and grant states a go-ahead to control firearms hence reducing domestic terrorism.
Work Cited
Barnes, Robert. Warnings or threat? Democrats Ignite Controversy with Supreme Court brief against Gun Case https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/warning-or-threat-democrats-ignite-controversy-with-supreme-court-brief-in-gun-case/2019/08/16/2ec96ef0-c039-11e9-9b73-fd3c65ef8f9c_story.html. Accessed 17 August 2019
Barnes, Robert. “New York Eased Gun Law Hopeful Supreme Court Would Drop Second Amendment Case-but That Hasn’t Happened Yet.” Sup. Ct. Preview (2019): 691.
Blackman, Josh. Overview of Oral Arguments in NYS Rifle and Pistol Association vs. The City of New York. https://reason.com/2019/12/03/overview-of-oral-arguments-in-nys-rifle-and-pistol-association-v-city-of-new-york/. Accessed 12 December 2019
Charles, Patrick J. “The Second Amendment and the Basic Right to Transport Firearms for Lawful Purposes.” Charleston L. Rev. 13 (2018): 125.
Howe, Amy. Argument Analysis: Justices focus on Mootness in Challenge to now Repealed New York Gun Rule. https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/12/argument-analysis-justices-focus-on-mootness-in-challenge-to-now-repealed-new-york-city-gun-rule/. Accessed 2 December 2019
Kindall, Claire. Symposium: The Second Amendment permits Premises Handgun Licenses. https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/11/symposium-the-second-amendment-permits-premises-handgun-licenses/. Accessed 21 November 2019
Liptak, Adam. “Fearing Supreme Court Loss, New York Tried to Make Gun Case Vanish.” Sup. Ct. Preview (2019): 688.
Mogilnicki, Eric J., and Alexander Schultz. “The Incomplete Record in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. The City of New York.” SMU L. Rev. F. 73 (2020): 1.
“New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. The City of New York.” Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/2019/18-280. Accessed 4 May. 2020.
Stempel, Jonathan. “New York City Law Survives Gun Rights Group’s Legal Challenge.” Sup. Ct. Preview (2019): 704.