The Supreme Court Punts on an Easy Second Amendment Case


It’s been a decade since the Supreme Court affirmed, in District
of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010), that the
Second Amendment protects an individual and fundamental right, striking down
laws that effectively prohibited the possession of handguns in one’s own home.

Since then, the court has routinely declined to address
many questions left unanswered by these opinions. Lower courts have often taken
advantage of that silence to erode the foundations of Heller and McDonald,
upholding many gun-control laws that seemed constitutionally dubious.

Many Second Amendment advocates were hopeful, however,
when the Supreme Court granted certiorari in New York Pistol & Rifle
Association v. City of New York last year to hear in this current term.

It appeared that the court was primed to issue its first
significant Second Amendment ruling in 10 years and perhaps establish a legal
framework that would help prevent future Second Amendment abuses.

Unfortunately, that was not to be. In a 6-3 decision,
a majority of the justices essentially washed their hands of the case, sending
it back down to the lower courts without ruling on the merits.

So, what was this case about? What did the dissenting justices
say? What might be next for the court and the Second Amendment?

What
Was the Case About?

The New York Pistol & Rifle Association case dealt
with the scope of the Second Amendment’s protection outside the home, though
not with the particular issue of concealed carry.

A New York City law required that all would-be handgun
owners go through a lengthy and rigorous permitting processing in order to
possess a handgun in their own homes.

This “premises permit” allowed handgun owners to keep
the firearm in their home, but they were otherwise unable to transport their
handguns anywhere except to one of seven gun ranges inside city limits.

The law was so strict that handgun owners could not even
transport the gun to a second home or to a closer gun range outside city
limits, even if the handgun was unloaded and stored in a hard-sided, locked
container, unable to be immediately accessed by the owner.

In 2013, lawful handgun owners in New York City sued the
city, claiming that the law violated the Second Amendment. The city maintained
throughout years of litigation that the law was constitutional, and that even
if its law did infringe on the petitioners’ Second Amendment rights, it was
still constitutionally permissible because it was “necessary to protect the
public safety.”

Despite the city’s adamant declaration that the ordinance
was constitutional and completely in line with the Supreme Court’s Second
Amendment precedent, it refused to defend the law before the nation’s highest
court.

Instead, shortly after the Supreme Court agreed to
review the case, the city slightly amended its laws to allow gun owners to
transport their handguns to out-of-city ranges or to a second home. The city
admitted that the amendment was motivated, at least in part, by a desire to
avoid Supreme Court review of a law many thought would be struck down under
Second Amendment precedent.

Although the majority’s reasoning isn’t entirely clear,
it appears that it determined the case was now moot—in other words, the
controversy it originally agreed to decide no longer existed because the law
had been changed.

To the extent that there were questions or controversies
over the new law, the parties would have to relitigate the case in the lower
courts.  

Three
Justices Dissented

Three justices—Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Clarence Thomas—dissented from the majority opinion. Alito’s well-reasoned dissent, which Gorsuch joined in full and Thomas joined in part, explained that these justices would not have held that the case was moot simply because New York City slightly amended the law.

Under existing precedent, cases are only declared moot
when “it is impossible for a court to grant any effectual relief whatever to
the prevailing party.” And the dissenters rightly point out that the amended
law did not, in fact, give the petitioners in the case everything they sought.

While the petitioners asked for “unrestricted access” to
out-of-city ranges, competitions, and second homes, the amended law does not
clearly grant it, since there is no real indication about where the city now
draws the line for “reasonably necessary” travel. The case cannot possibly be
moot if “the City still withholds from the petitioners something that they have
claimed from the beginning is their constitutional right.”

Moreover, the dissenting justices noted that the Supreme
Court has been particularly wary of declaring a case moot where—such as here—one
party attempts to “manufacture mootness” in order to avoid an adverse court
decision.

Finally, the dissent moved on to address the merits of
the case, which they described as “not a close question.” The law clearly
violated the Second Amendment, as outlined in Heller and McDonald.

The city could point to no evidence of laws in force
during the country’s founding era that prevented gun owners from practicing
outside of city limits. In a section not joined by Thomas (likely because he
believes the historical argument is the end of the matter), Alito and Gorsuch
called the city’s public safety arguments “weak on their face” and completely
unsubstantiated by the evidence.

As another bright note on an otherwise frustrating
outcome, Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote a concurring opinion stating that
although he agreed with the majority about the procedural issues of mootness,
he shared the dissent’s concern about how some lower courts have treated the
Second Amendment. In his opinion, the court should “address this issue soon.”

What’s
Next?

This outcome is certainly disappointing to Second
Amendment advocates, many of whom thought that if the court was going to
dismiss the case as moot, it should have done so much earlier, allowing time to
grant and hear another Second Amendment case this term.

As it stands, the earliest the court would hear another
Second Amendment case, should it grant certiorari in one, is in its next term,
which begins in October.

Importantly, many of the court’s pending Second
Amendment cases were distributed for conference this week, meaning that the justices
may soon discuss whether to grant certiorari in any of them.

Several of those cases would give the court ample
opportunity to address very significant Second Amendment questions. They
largely involve laws that state or local governments would likely be less eager
to amend in order to avoid review.

For example, both Wilson v. Cook County, Illinois, and Worman
v. Healey involve challenges to bans on so-called “assault weapons,” which are
in reality semi-automatic firearms commonly owned by law-abiding citizens and
used for lawful purposes.

Cases such as Rogers v. Grewal, out of New Jersey, and Malpasso
v. Pallozzi, out of Maryland, would allow the court to review laws that limit
concealed-carry permits only to applicants who can show “good cause” above and
beyond a general need for self-defense.

There is also Pena v. Horan, which challenges a
California law requiring all new handguns sold in the state to be
“microstamped” in a way that is not possible with current technology.

While it was disheartening to see the Supreme Court give
in so easily to New York City’s legal antics, the pain would be very much
salved should the justices immediately take up a new Second Amendment case that
promises to address equally significant questions.

The nation can’t afford another decade of silence while
states erode this fundamental right. 





Source link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *