Supreme Court Sides with New York City In Gun Transport Case Decision

U.S. Supreme Court Image NRA-ILA
U.S. Supreme Court Image NRA-ILA

U.S.A.-( The U.S. Supreme Court just released its decision, April 27, 2020, in the New York “Gun Transport” case: New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc., vs. Petitioners V. City Of New York, 590 U.S ____ (2020), and it isn’t good. You can read the decision here on the SCOTUS website.

What Was the New York City Gun Transport Case About?

“Petitioners [NYSRPA] sought declaratory and injunctive relief against enforcement of the rule insofar as the rule prevented their transport of firearms to a second home or shooting range outside of the city. The District Court and the Court of Appeals rejected petitioners’ claim. See 883 F. 3d 45 (CA2 2018). We granted certiorari. 586 U. S. ___ (2019). After we granted certiorari, the State of New York amended its firearm licensing statute, and the City amended the rule so that petitioners may now transport firearms to a second home or shooting range outside of the city, which is the precise relief that petitioners requested in the prayer for relief in their complaint.”

New York City changed its law, fearing the Supreme Court would find the law unconstitutional. The last thing anti-Second Amendment forces want is a high Court opinion that strengthens the Second Amendment. The City’s gambit paid off. In a 6 to 3 vote, the Supreme Court held that, since the City changed the old rule, the case is moot, because Petitioners can now lawfully transport their handgun to a second home or shooting range outside the City. But can they really? What will New York City do in the future to restrict the fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms? This will almost certainly embolden New York City Mayor Bill DeBlasio and New York Governor Andrew Cuomo.

Cuomo has threatened to destroy the Second Amendment to the Nation many times in the past. In a previous AQ article, titled, “Andrew Cuomo Seeks To Impose New York’s Restrictive Gun Laws On The Entire Nation,” published on our site, on March 31, 2019, we pointed out that,

“In January of 2019 . . . Cuomo announced plans . . . to increase gun control within the first 100 days of the new legislative session,’ and he chortled, ‘New York already has the strongest gun safety laws in the nation, and we are taking additional steps to make our laws even stronger and keep our communities, and our schools, safe. Together, we will pass this common sense legislation and send a clear message to Washington that gun violence has no place in our state or nation. . . .’ ‘[t]he rest of the country should take up legislation similar to the Safe Act gun control. . . . .’”

The Court’s gun transport case decision gives Cuomo and others who seek to destroy the Second Amendment” confidence that the Court will be doing nothing to rein them in.

How Did Individual Justices Vote?

As you may have suspected, the liberal wing of the Court, along with Chief Justice Roberts, voted in favor of the City, to dismiss the case. Justices Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch dissented.

Curiously and disturbingly, Trump’s second nominee to the Supreme Court, Brett Kavanaugh, agreed with Chief Justice Roberts and the liberal wing, but filed a “Concurring Opinion” acknowledging that Justice Alito’s concern over some State and Federal Court mishandling of Heller and McDonald warrants high Court review but that the Court can do so in other cases pending before the Court.

The Court remanded the case to the New York Court of Appeals but only to discuss the Petitioner’s argument for damages. But the issue of damages is of no consequence. It is injunctive relief the NYSRPA wanted. Anti-Constitutional forces in government consistently, unconscionably, and contemptuously enact laws designed to infringe the core of the Second Amendment without regard to the Heller and McDonald rulings. The NYSRPA wanted and expected the Supreme Court to stop this. The gun transport case would have operated as a good test case. But the Court’s majority folded. What will New York City do in the future to restrict the fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms?

Justice Alito’s Dissenting Opinion

The Majority decided the case in a two-page decision. Justice Alito, who penned the McDonald decision, wrote a thirty-one-page dissent, joined by Justices Thomas and Gorsuch. In his opening remarks, Justice Alito began his Dissent with a blanket rebuke of the Majority’s Decision. He says:

“By incorrectly dismissing this case as moot, the Court permits our docket to be manipulated in a way that should not be countenanced. Twelve years ago in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570 (2008), we held that the Second Amendment protects the right of ordinary Americans to keep and bear arms. Two years later, our decision in McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742 (2010), established that this right is fully applicable to the States. Since then, the lower courts have decided numerous cases involving Second Amendment challenges to a variety of federal, state, and local laws. Most have failed. We have been asked to review many of these decisions, but until this case, we denied all such requests. On January 22, 2019, we granted review to consider the constitutionality of a New York City ordinance that burdened the right recognized in Heller.”

What Is Really Going On In The Supreme Court?

The Supreme Court Majority did not want to deal with the Second Amendment since that means having to accept Heller and McDonald precedents. The liberal wing of the Court, especially, never wants to do this, and won’t.

Of course, the liberal wing never agreed with or accepted the Heller and McDonald rulings, and has consistently gone along with government actions to infringe the Second Amendment as if Heller and McDonald rulings never existed.

But, Justices Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch have had enough.

Alito made clear New York City’s rescission of the transport gun case rule simply amounts to New York City’s acknowledging the unconstitutionality of the rule and that the Court would overturn it.

Justice Alito said, in closing:

“In sum, the City’s travel restriction burdened the very right recognized in Heller. History provides no support for a restriction of this type. The City’s public safety arguments were weak on their face, were not substantiated in any way, and were accepted below with no serious probing. And once we granted review in this case, the City’s public safety concerns evaporated. We are told that the mode of review in this case is representative of the way Heller has been treated in the lower courts. If that is true, there is cause for concern. This case is not moot. The City violated petitioners’ Second Amendment right, and we should so hold. I would reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case to the District Court to provide appropriate relief.”

The liberal wing of the Court consistently legislates from the Bench. They abhor the Second Amendment and if they were confident that they could overturn Heller and McDonald, they would do so in a heartbeat. At the moment, they cannot.

Chief Justice Robert’s decision comes as no surprise. Justice Kavanaugh’s vote does, however. His concurring opinion reflects that his heart and mind are with Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch, but he went along with Roberts and the liberal wing of the Court anyway. Why did he do this? To say that the Court will have other opportunities to deal with unlawful attacks on Heller and McDonald doesn’t explain why he would pass on dealing with an outright attack on those seminal cases with a clear opportunity to do so with the gun transport case before him. That is a “cop out” pure and simple and Kavanaugh, a careful, perspicacious legal thinker and writer must be called out for an obvious act of frailty, unbefitting him.

Is Kavanaugh so really afraid the Radical Left will impeach him, as they have threatened? Does he think they will make good their threat if Biden defeats Trump in the upcoming General Election and if the Democrats not only hold onto the House, but win a majority in the Senate, too? Is the New York City gun transport case just an anomaly or does it signal what we may expect from Kavanaugh in the future: currying favor with the Radical Left and betraying intellectual honesty to halt an impeachment proceeding and trial?

On January 24, 2019 AQ wrote an extensive article on the New York gun transport case that, at the time, the Court agreed to take up. Mayor DeBlasio and The New York Times were fearful and furious. You may read our article, “U.S. Supreme Court To Hear New York Gun Case; Mainstream Media Visibly Worried.”

In a forthcoming article AQ will analyze Alito’s dissenting opinion, along with Kavanaugh’s odd, evasive concurring opinion. We will deal with the issue of mootness which deserves serious attention; and will examine how dangerous this decision is for the entire Nation.

Arbalest Quarrel

About The Arbalest Quarrel:

Arbalest Group created `The Arbalest Quarrel’ website for a special purpose. That purpose is to educate the American public about recent Federal and State firearms control legislation. No other website, to our knowledge, provides as deep an analysis or as thorough an analysis. Arbalest Group offers this information free.

For more information, visit:

Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Green Mtn. Boy


Where have you been this was announced 3 hours ago, that said.

“The question thus becomes, “What will Roberts do?””

How that individual can even look himself in the mirror is the question.

He has proven his first duty is not to the Constitution and has thus proven the need for impeachment and removal from the body of the court.


Over and over again, Roberts is the problem.

moe mensale

Roberts has never signed an illegal FISA warrant. He’s never signed a legal one either. Why? Because Supreme Court justices don’t sit on the FISA court. And Roberts was never appointed to the FISA court before becoming Chief Justice. The Chief Justice does, however, appoint all the members of the FISA court. Roberts has appointed all the current FISA court members. Stop talking about shit you don’t know anything about. Your stupidity is on full display for all to see. You’re still a fool and a moron.


Clarence Thomas has been one of if not THE most consistantly Constitutional Justices on SCOTUS for decades. I dread the day that he retires. Kavanaugh, was but one more of Trump’s pet Swamp creatures, pushed through in the court of public opinion by a masterful CIA-esque psyop. The wrongful attacks on his character by low class women created a perfect storm of reverse psychology support for Kavanaugh which was wholly undeserved. To this day, idiots will say that Kavanaugh is “a Constitutionalist” when he is no such thing. He is a statist who, among other things, wrote the opinion used… Read more »


I don’t remember Kavanaugh being on the SC when Obamacare was decided. wasn’t he nominated by President Trump in 2019?


Read it again @gregs. “wrote the opinion used by Turncoat Roberts to justify the individual mandate”. Grigori doesn’t say Kavanaugh wrote the opinion when on the SC.


He was a clerk, aid or similar, when he wrote the opinion used by Turncoat Roberts to justify the individual mandate. This was BEFORE Trump reached into The Swamp, pulled Kavanaugh out, and nominated him for SCOTUS.


Liberals are by definition not qualified to sit on the high court. As for Kavanaugh he won’t be getting any awards for courage. After what the left did to him, I would think he would welcome the opportunity to teach them a lesson about Constitutional rule–but no. Kavanaugh was a mistake.


Today is like every other day in the state of NY Those elected by New Yorkers have been putting the same people in office for years, The vote is Democrat always anti gun anti america now those living in major U.S, controlled by the democratic party are about to learn even a harder lesson. It is clear that those cities were hardest hit by covid19 due to lack of leadership from local mayors to the governors. Liberal thinking from NY cities Mayor caused the pandemic to spread far and wide. Now they ask taxpayers from around the country to bail… Read more »

The other Jim

Shame about Kavanaugh. I don’t think Trump should appoint anymore prep-school high class little rich boys to any federal court anymore.


Now that was well said! Esp. this part:
If one is required to spend large amounts of money on attorneys to get the Courts to agree that you have rights, then they are NOT rights, but privileges that are for sale!
Sorry about the paraphrasing USA. I’m trying to turn it into a one liner! But I’m no wordsmith. Perhaps someone else better than I might see this and also help to spread the word???


How about, “A right that an attorney must defend is no right at all”? Of course, though, no one has rights at all, if they cannot or will not defend them. The strong are always happy to deprive the weak or timid of their so-called rights.


Kavanaugh is nothing more than the globalist Bush family’s lackey prodigal attorney. Trump should have selected a more conservative option. His actions here prove it. Besides that, if my math is correct, even if he did vote conservatively here, the case would have still been dismissed at a 5-4 vote. That means Ginsburg is somehow still able to hold a pencil, which scares me far more than anything else regarding the SCOTUS.


Bottom line, Gear up, train, and get ready for the BIG one.It’s just a matter of months before we either shit or get of the POT.
Do not forget to stock up on any and all foods you will need for a min of 12 months, food costs are going up a 1000% in the next 6 months.


TYRANTS!!! These judges should all be removed, they can’t even understand the Constitution. All of congress, federal state and local, also all judges and lawyers. None of them honor their OATHS of office. They are all TRAITORS. We the PEOPLE never gain on rights, we only keep losing! Seems they have all conspired for job security until all our freedoms are gone. WAKE UP PEOPLE!!!


Oh Bullshiit! In this case I have to agree with their decision. The problem is that the state changed their law to prevent the SCOTUS from rendering a decision. The SCOTUS cannot render a decision on a law that no longer exists, and in this case the original law no longer exists – it was changed. These leftists are playing a game, and doing it in such a way that they can add a little each time. The lawyers should have gotten enough plaintiffs that all parts of the law were covered, so the law could be shut down, but… Read more »






Who cares what these monkeys say or decide if you want to go to Oswego for the weekend and shoot all weekend at a friends property PACK YOUR SHIT AND LETS GO getting tired of all this communist B.S. F-UM .


I did tell everybody to look at Kavanaugh’s rulings and writings instead of his fucking yearbook. He’s no friend to our Constitution or 2nd Amendment. For fuck sake! Neither is Trump! Wake up people! As more and more judges are handed their positions from this lying dirt bag, our Constitution and Bill Of Rights becomes weaker. And so many of you are actually cheering it on and defending it…..




All this shows is that our system is out of control. The leftists know just how to play the game so that the SCOTUS can’t decide a case. They create a law, then when a case is filed against the law, they change only the part that is specified in the case, in that way the case is moot, yet the rest of the law stands until someone else is harmed and files against it. What it also shows, by reading the comments, is that the majority of commenters are ignorant of how the courts make decisions. In this case… Read more »


I like that… Well said!


What did anyone truly expect to happen? The courts have not been a favorable Ally of the Constitution for many years. At any level. At best it has become an opinion fight of one court against another. Allowing for a “Long Game” approach to defining what Freedoms citizens have. With little regard to the Constitution. All the while slowly allowing the very idea Freedom to be watered down. To suit what faction is in power at the moment. The courts are no more a guarantee of Freedom. Than are politicians. Leaving the citizenry to founder on the winds of political… Read more »


Everyone needs to realize this was the only way SCOTUS could rule, as New York changed their law! Had they not changed it, they would have lost at the USSC. And that would be bad for the anti-gunners.


The bottom line is, this decision, like many others, as well as the many restrictive laws on gun ownership, does NOTHING to enhance public safety. It’s going to be a rigamarole until, hopefully, gun rights groups play offense by lobbying for laws that focus on punishing individuals for the criminal misuse of firearms, punish individuals for irresponsible gun handling and punish individuals for negligent gun storage in presence of irresponsible minors. I said the above many times, and will continue to say it, our side had a lot going for it, let’s use it. Play offense, turn the tables on… Read more »


There is no doubt to me that since Kavanaugh knew that his vote would not make a difference, he voted to dismiss. I like to think that if his vote was a deciding vote that he would have followed the constitution and voted in favor of the 2nd amendment.


Are you kidding? We won and you are still beating that dead horse?

We need the right case to test, not an iffy one to make good law.

Let’s get the right facts for a good test case!

AZ Lefty

I do not know where the Writer ot their GED in law but this was the only decision they could make since the law is no longer in affect; you might want to learn how the Federal Courts including SCOTUS work!

Ansel Hazen

I am in agreement. As much as I want SCOTUS to rule on something that puts paid to the Shall Not Be Infringed issue this wasn’t it the moment NY changed the law. Which we all know was a scumbag move but there it is.

The task at hand will be to keep hounding SCOTUS with more requests for a ruling. But this time choose things that are impervious to any about face such as what happened in this case.


Hey, Az Lefty, This wasn’t a 9 to 0 decision. Obviously, Justices Alito,Thomas, and Gorsuch would disagree with your conclusion and that of Anzel Hazen, since those learned Justices dissented from the majority’s decision, and they had much to say about the case. Moreover, apart from the merits of the case, which Justice Alito (as joined by Thomas and Gorsuch) argued the high Court should have taken up, the Supreme Court has, in the past, dealt, in depth, with the specific issue of mootness, and, on the basis of our analysis of those cases, we believe the Court’s majority did… Read more »

Ansel Hazen

I’m not saying I disagree with the dissenters, I just understand why SCOTUS could look at this and do what they did. The message to me here is that SCOTUS wants a real issue to sink their teeth into. Go Find That Issue! One that can’t have the rug pulled out from under you by cheating liberals. Learn from what the left does to us. Shame SCOTUS into taking it. Use the court of public opinion by posting their contact info and asking Americans to let them know we want a 2A ruling from the court that settles the shall… Read more »

Will Flatt

AH, the majority didn’t decline to hear the case because of mootness as much as they didn’t want to be backed into a corner and have to rule on a 2A case because the Constitution / Bill of Rights is so unambiguous on gun rights. They know that with the principle of stare decisis & previous decisions that stand as they are, they would only have one option. An option they desperately do not want to face. Roger Katz is right about this; the dissenting justices are the ones in the right, and the ones who sought to moot this… Read more »