SCOTUS To Hear Challenge to New York Gun Travel Ban

By John Crump

Human Rights Lawsuit
SCOTUS To Hear Challenge to New York Gun Travel Ban

Washington, D.C.-(Ammoland.com)- It has been almost ten years since the Supreme Court of The United States has taken up a gun law related case. In that case, Dick Hiller defeated the Washington DC gun ban. The court ruled that the Second Amendment protected an individual’s right to possess a firearm. Since then the court has refused to take up any further gun cases until now.

SCOTUS will review a New York City ban on transferring a firearm outside the city. Basically, a gun travel ban.

Even if the gun was unloaded and licensed the gun owner could not leave the town with it. This restriction included taking the weapon to a weekend home or a range outside the city. The New York State Pistol and Rifle Association requested the review claiming that the law is draconian and put an undue burden on the gun owner.

The New York State Pistol and Rifle Association (NYSPRA) is associated with the National Rifle Association and has a similar mission to the NRA. Instead of concentrating on the national stage the NYSPRA focuses its efforts on the state level. It is New York’s largest and oldest Second Amendment organization and has fought against laws like the SAFE Act.

With partial funding from the NRA, the NYSPRA is disputing the New York City law on two fronts. The first front is that the law is a violation of the Second Amendment. NYC claims that it is within its right to regulate where and how a resident of NYC transports their guns. The city will be hard pressed to convince SCOTUS of this argument.

The second issue that the NYSPRA points out to SCOTUS is that the law runs afoul of the commerce clause of the Constitution. Only the federal government has the right to regulate interstate commerce including the transportation of guns across state lines. The state has the power to regulate commerce within its borders.

Since the state’s and the federal government’s laws are in direct contradiction to the laws of New York City the laws of the State and federal government take precedence over those of the city.

Because the state and federal laws have preemption over the law banning the transportation of a firearm out of New York City the city’s law is violating the commerce clause. Even the most liberal minds in constitutional law can see a big problem with NYC’s attempt at regulating the transportation of a firearm out of the city.

Even though the case was fraught with Constitutional pitfall for NYC, they were successful in The Second Circuit Court of Appeals. The court ruled that the law did not violate the Second Amendment or the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. The Second Circuit Court has a history of anti-gun rulings.

The Second Circuit Court upheld the so-called “assault weapon bans” in New York, Connecticut, and Maryland. The court ruled that the Second Amendment does not cover modern sporting rifles such as the AR-15. The plaintiffs appealed the decision in these cases to SCOTUS, but the high court refused to hear the arguments in any of the cases.

The NYSPRA is confident their case. Tom King of the NYSPRA acknowledges that nothing is definite when it comes to SCOTUS, but he thinks the merits of the case speaks for its self.

“There is no way of predicting the outcome of a Supreme Court Case,” King told AmmoLand News, “however we are confident in the merits of the case and look forward to a favorable decision.”

This case might seem minor, but it could have a significant impact on future gun control making it harder for cities and towns to pass gun control laws. Gun advocates can also view this as SCOTUS being more willing to hear gun cases. This willingness would be a massive shift from the previous ten years.

Judge Clarence Thomas, Judge Neil Gorsuch, Judge Samuel Alito, and Judge Brett Kavanaugh seem to lean in favor of expanding gun rights. Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Judge Stephen Breyer, Judge Sonia Sotomayor, and Judge Elena Kagan are firmly against any expansion of gun rights. This split will most likely leave the deciding vote up to Chief Justice John Roberts.

Since the SCOTUS docket is full for the spring, they will probably push the case out to sometime in the fall before oral arguments. The court will then rule on the merits of the case in 2020.


About John CrumpJohn Crump

John is a NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. He is the former CEO of Veritas Firearms, LLC and is the co-host of The Patriot-News Podcast which can be found at www.blogtalkradio.com/patriotnews. John has written extensively on the patriot movement including 3%’ers, Oath Keepers, and Militias. In addition to the Patriot movement, John has written about firearms, interviewed people of all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons and is currently working on a book on leftist deplatforming methods and can be followed on Twitter at @crumpyss, on Facebook at realjohncrump, or at www.crumpy.com.

22 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
bert
bert
2 years ago

RKBA FOREVER!
Im voting for Uncle Ted!

Douglas G
Douglas G
2 years ago

Given the courts history, the best we can hope for is a broad ranging “Opinion” from the side that strikes this law down. And that won’t happen until 2020. In the meantime, states are running rampant with Unconstitutional bans, confiscation laws, registries, ammunition controls, magazine limits, etc… Big deal, now New Yorkers can take their guns to the range outside the NYC limits. Next NY will impose a distance limit for travelling with your gun or ban ammunition transport if you have a gun. This wormhole is endless. That is until SCOTUS takes on a real case that affects every… Read more »

24and7
24and7
2 years ago

Two cardinal rules if you are traveling.. NEVER TELL ANY OFFICER A GUN IS IN YOUR CAR! That gives them probable cause to search your entire vehicle.. if an officer comes up and ask if you are carrying a weapon (without an articulate reason)..he does not know.. Say NO.. a weapon that is truly concealed is out of sight and out of mind.. sometimes trying to be too honest and transparent does not help you.. and telling an officer you have a weapon in the car can cause overreaction and sensory overload.. not to mention the quirkiness of other state… Read more »

Tom
Tom
2 years ago

They should also address the “travel through” ban. While federal law allows the transport through New York of firearms, that doesn’t apparently apply to New York’s magazine ban. Having previously lived in CT, going to Pennsylvania without going through NY is kind of a problem. Thankfully, escaped to Texas, the land of the free…

ras
ras
2 years ago

I doubt that the SCOTUS will ever take on a challenge to any restrictive laws like the AWB laws of NY, CT CA, etc. Although we don’t know what the ruling will be in this case, we may not see them take up another 2nd Amendment case for another 10 or so years. The right to bear arms is being killed by the death of 1000 cuts.

Deplorable Bill
Deplorable Bill
2 years ago

We can only hope and pray that the supreme court still knows how to read and remember their oath. If they neglect their duties, we will be in for a time not seen since the revolutionary war for independence. They all swore to defend the constitution and defend the nation against all enemies, foreign and domestic. To defend and uphold the rights and freedoms that are ordained in the BIBLE and guaranteed in the constitution and it’s amendments. The ramifications of doing their job justly or not will be far reaching.

Arm up, carry on.

rich z
rich z
2 years ago

Those who VOTED for these crooks enjoy. Those who DIDN’T VOTE look at what you got . NOW you will have to LIVE with it.

Macofjack
Macofjack
2 years ago

Now we will see what the SCOTUS is made of. Let’s hope their are what they say they are!

Green Mtn. Boy
Green Mtn. Boy
2 years ago

I found this article on the topic at hand particularly good.

https://reason.com/volokh/2019/01/22/supreme-courts-new-second-amendment-case#comment

Duane
Duane
2 years ago

There could be a chance to have another constitutionalist appointed by the time the case is heard.

The Green Watch Dog
The Green Watch Dog
2 years ago

2020 may not seem long, but in the eyes of the SCOTUS their decision can take quite some time. With sensible gun control taking more precedence and acceptance, look for more restrictions. I do support the challenge to the ban. The GWD.

The Revelator
The Revelator
2 years ago

Its too bad the rest of what you support is right in line with those who pushed the ban.

There is no such thing as “Sensible” gun control. This has already been explained to you many times over before, and each time you tuck tail when out argued. Gun Control does not control guns, it controls people, and the people it hurts the most are the law abiding. We will never comply with what you want.

The Green Watch Dog
The Green Watch Dog
2 years ago
Reply to  The Revelator

Revelatar,
Never would I wish imposing ill for our right to bear arms. As a patriot we insist to defend ourselves. What I do defend though is our right to a safe environment. Requiring that gun owners, including myself, be held responsible in securing our weapons. Simply- Be accountable! Insuring that a crazed neighbor is not afforded the opportunity to unleash horror in mass killings.

Hoplite
Hoplite
2 years ago

Liberal pablum.

Robert J. Lucas
Robert J. Lucas
2 years ago

@GWD, You as Citizen of the U.S.A. should Support your Constitution and Bill of Rights, let the Supreme Court do their job. Lefty/Liberal dribble has no place in a free American Society. Firearm ownership/stewardship goes hand in hand. The legal owners in the firearms community already understand accountability, safety, and storage procedures. The National Rifle Association and other pro-firearms groups have often cited the 20,000+ firearms laws that are already on the books as reasons why more enforcement, not more legislation, is the answer to curb firearm violence. It looks like “common sense gun laws” already exist for the law-abiding… Read more »

The Revelator
The Revelator
2 years ago

J. Lucas

Don’t let Green watchdog fool you. He is a gun control proponent who has been here for a while. He loves citing groups like the Brady Campaign, Everytown, ect… He has been pushing for gun control.

Just be careful you don’t let him fool you. He is a coyote in sheep’s clothing.

The Revelator
The Revelator
2 years ago

@GWD You do wish to impose ill on our rights. Everytime you support unconstitutional Red Flag laws, Universal Background checks, registration, safe storage, licensing, capacity bans, or other non “Sensible” gun control policies you advocate imposing infringements on the second amendment. Safe storage laws only get law abiding gun owners killed during home invasions. I know of no gun owner who does not lock their doors when they leave their house, or if they are going out of town lock up their firearms. If that is what you are talking about, then we already do that and no laws are… Read more »

Robert J. Lucas
Robert J. Lucas
2 years ago
Reply to  The Revelator

The Revalator,
Thank You for your insight on the (gwd), he is the typical anti-constitionalist that I have spoken about many times before…

The Revelator
The Revelator
2 years ago
Reply to  The Revelator

J. Lucas

You are welcome.

He comes here trying to claim to be a gun owner in the hopes he can get some to go along with his nonsense.

Normally he only gets in one or two replies before I lower the boom, at which point he runs off to try again on a new article. If you see him around, call him out when he lies.

Jose Garcia
Jose Garcia
2 years ago

You’re reaching for the easy button. Can you show us where in the Bill of Rights we have a “right” to a safe environment? For the same reason no parent of a mass shooting incident victim can file a law suit against the police for failing to protect their child. The courts have ruled time and again all over this country, that the police have no specific obligation to any single person to ensure that person’s physical safety. The police only have a “GENERAL” obligation to the PUBLIC at large, to provide general safety to the public. SAFETY IS NOT… Read more »

Get Out
Get Out
2 years ago

Shouldn’t have had to send it up to SCOTUS, the law was a knee-jerk and unconstitutional law that only applied to the law abiding citizens from the get go and should have been knocked down by local and state courts as such. BTW this was an anti-gunners sensible gun control measure to keep law abiding citizens from exercising their Second Amendment rights.

m.
m.
2 years ago

cu-homo, de-gasio & new-yawk: FU, a**holes, NOYFB