Justice Clarence Thomas, speaking at an event hosted by The Law Library of Congress and the Supreme Court Fellows Program. Image via YouTube

The U.S. Supreme Court, stepping back into one of its most controversial areas for the first time in a decade, on Tuesday agreed to examine a gun-rights challenge to a New York City law that restricts the transport of weapons across city borders.

The justices have turned away a number of challenges to state and local gun regulations since their 2008 landmark Second Amendment decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, recognizing an individual right to possess a gun in the home for self defense, and their 2010 decision in McDonald v. City of Chicago, applying the Second Amendment to the states.

Justice Clarence Thomas, joined in the past by Justice Neil Gorsuch, has vigorously dissented from the justices' refusals to take more Second Amendment cases. He has called the amendment a “disfavored right” and “this court's constitutional orphan.”

The justices granted review in the case New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York. The city's “premises” license allows licensees to transport their handguns, unloaded and in a locked container, only to and from firing ranges within the city for target practice and competitions. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on Feb. 23 rejected the association's claims that the law violated the Second Amendment, the dormant commerce clause and the right to interstate travel.

Calling the law a “draconian” transport ban, Kirkland & Ellis partner Paul Clement, representing the association, wrote in his petition, that a “New Yorker cannot transport his handgun to his second home for the core constitutional purpose of self-defense, to an upstate county to participate in a shooting competition, or even across the bridge to a neighboring city for target practice.”

Clement said the city's regulation is “exemplary of a broader push by local governments to restrict Second Amendment rights through means that would never fly in any other constitutional context.”

But city counsel Richard Dearing countered that the Second Circuit did not err.

“Instead of claiming the case presents any circuit split or important recurring question, [petitioners] argue that it is somehow emblematic of a national trend of disregard for Second Amendment rights,” he wrote. “But the assortment of judicial decisions and local laws they cite do not demonstrate any such trend. And petitioners fail to explain how review of this case would meaningful address such a trend or clarify matters for lower courts.”

Dearing also told the court that the Second Circuit analyzed the city's law under intermediate scrutiny, “consistent with the approach taken by a majority of courts of appeals.”

The New York law department said in a statement Tuesday: “The city's rule keeps us all safer by limiting public transport of handguns through our crowded streets while also allowing license holders fair opportunity to maintain proficiency in the use of their weapons. We look forward to defending the rule in the Supreme Court.”

 

Read more:

Clarence Thomas, in Dissent, Asserts Gun Rights Aren't 'Favored' at High Court

Divided 9th Circuit Panel Says Hawaii Open-Carry Law Violates 2nd Amendment