New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. City of New York (18-280)

argument 18-280

New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. City of New York

Supreme Court of the United States 1h 2m 6 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 8 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What constitutional claim does New York State Rifle & Pistol Association make against the City’s transport ban?

John G. Roberts 0:00

We'll hear argument first this morning in case eighteen two hundred eighty, the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association versus the City of New York. Mr Clement.

Noel J. Francisco 0:09

Mr Chief Justice, and may it please the court. Text, history, and tradition all make clear that New York City's restrictive premises license and accompanying transport ban are unconstitutional. The City's restriction on transporting firearms to places where they may be lawfully possessed, and its insistence in its revised regulations that any such transport be continuous and uninterrupted are premised on a view of the Second. Amendment as a homebound right, with any ability to venture beyond the cartilage with a firearm, even locked and unloaded, a matter of government grace. That view is inconsistent with text, history, tradition, and this court's cases. The text of the Second Amendment protects rights to keep and bear arms.

Noel J. Francisco 0:57

That latter right makes clear that the Second Amendment protects rights. That are not strictly limited to the premises. And there is no historical analog for the city's prohibition on transporting firearms to places where they may be lawfully used. To the contrary, the Second Congress required the militia to take their own firearms from their homes to the training ground. And the regulations on limiting where firearms may be discharged or where training may occur are. that the city invokes both underscore that the general rule was that firearms could be safely transported between and among places where they could be used and discharged. This court recognized as much in Heller, both by recognizing the long history of handgun possession outside the home

Noel J. Francisco 1:44

and by recognizing the government's interest in limiting possession in sp sensitive places, not every place outside the home. The city, of course, has struggled mightily ever since this court granted Cercherare to make this case go away. But those efforts are unavailing and only underscore their continuing view that the transport of firearms is a matter of municipal grace rather than constitutional right. The standard for movement

Ruth Bader Ginsburg 2:12

Mr Clement, the city has now been blocked By a state law, and the state has not been party to these proceedings, but The state says, City, thou shalt not enforce the regulations. So what's left of this case? The petitioners have gotten all the relief that they sought. They can carry a gun to a second home They can carry it to a fire. um to a practice range out of state.

Noel J. Francisco 2:42

So, Justice Ginsburg, the petitioners have not gotten all the relief to which they had been entitled if they prevailed in this litigation before the city and the state changed their law. I think the best way to illustrate that is if we had prevailed in the district court before these changes in the law, we would have been entitled, of course, to a declaration that the transport ban is and always was unconstitutional, but we would also be entitled to an injunction that did three things. One, prohibit future enforcement of the transport ban. Second, prevent the city from taking past conduct in violation of the ban into account in licensing decisions. And third, an injunction that safeguard our right to transport meaningfully such that it wouldn't be limited to continuous and uninterrupted transport.

Noel J. Francisco 3:28

But the state law

Ruth Bader Ginsburg 3:29

as far as what you said about uh enforcing past violations. Uh no plaintiff has alleged that they ever violating the the regulations when they were in effect.

Noel J. Francisco 3:43

That's actually not correct, Justice Ginsburg. If you look at paragraphs twelve, fifteen and seventeen of the complaint at pages twenty eight and twenty nine of the joint appendix, all three of the individual petitioners alleged that they regularly went outside the city of New York to firing ranges in Outside Westchester basically and in New Jersey. So all three of my clients are on the record as saying that in the past they engaged in conduct that is inconsistent with the transport ban. And if you understand the way that the City of New York licenses handguns,

Elena Kagan 4:19

Mr. Clement, I believe that the city has