Supreme Court Will Hear Firearms Case, Testing New York 'Premises' Law
The justices' order Tuesday marks the first major grant to a firearms case in recent years. Paul Clement is counsel to the challengers of a New York City law.
January 22, 2019 at 10:02 AM
3 minute read
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:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllBaltimore City Govt., After Winning Opioid Jury Trial, Preparing to Demand an Additional $11B for Abatement Costs
3 minute readRegulatory Upheaval Is Coming. How Businesses Prepare and Respond Will Separate Winners and Losers
3 GOP States Join Paid Sick Leave Movement, Passing Ballot Measures by Wide Margins
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250