NY State Rifle & Pistol v. New York, NY

Whether New York City’s ban on transporting a licensed, locked, and unloaded handgun to a home or shooting range outside city limits is consistent with the Second Amendment, the Commerce Clause, and the constitutional right to travel.

New York City prohibits possession of a handgun without a license. The only license it makes available to most residents prohibits them from transporting a handgun to any place outside city limits, even if the handgun is unloaded and locked separately from its ammunition; residents may possess their handguns only in their home or en route to one of seven shooting ranges within New York City. The district court granted summary judgment for the City holding that the statute is reasonably related to the City’s interest in public safety and prevention of crime and that it does not violate the Commerce Clause. The Court of Appeals affirmed, acknowledging the Second Amendment core right to self-protection, and positing that restricting the transport of weapons does not significantly limit their use with respect to that core purpose. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether New York City’s ban on transporting a licensed, locked, and unloaded handgun to a home or shooting range outside city limits is consistent with the Second Amendment, the Commerce Clause, and the constitutional right to travel. Petitioner argues the law violates citizens’ constitutional right to protection by preventing them from transporting a firearm to a second home outside the city. Petitioner also argues that restricting the use of lawfully obtained firearms to in-city shooting ranges violates the Commerce Clause because it deprives people of their access to other States’ markets. Additionally, Petitioner argues that the law restricts citizens’ fundamental right to travel by conditioning any travel on citizens’ forfeiture of another significant fundamental right. Petitioner asserts that burdens on constitutional rights require a heightened showing of strict scrutiny, while the City’s ban does not even survive a rational basis analysis.