Currently in New York, gun laws are facing the biggest challenge they have ever faced in the history of our country. With gun laws being a prime issue for many people including myself, it is important that as a country we understand why this is a pivotal moment in our lives. This situation pertains to gun rights in New York City regarding transportation and usage. There is a regulation which permits residents with specific premises licenses to take their guns to a shooting club/range within the city (of which there are seven). However, this regulation prohibits individuals from bringing their guns elsewhere, such as second homes and shooting ranges beyond the city limits. This regulation applies even if the guns are securely locked in containers, unloaded, and separated from ammunition. It should be noted that a premise license grants one to “have and possess in his dwelling” a handgun. Specifically, the license is designated to restrict the handgun to a single permanent address which may only change under certain circumstances such as transporting them to a shooting club/ range in New York City. First it is important to discuss the technicalities of the situation.
Three people with premise licenses wanted to attend shooting ranges and competitions outside of New York City. The individuals wished to transport their handguns, which the New York regulation prohibits. Therefore, the individuals as well as the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association filed a lawsuit in federal district Court, declaring the regulations from New York City to be unconstitutional. In particular, the Second Amendment is being restricted which petitioners argue require the highest level of scrutiny when discussed. These individuals believe their rights are being overly restricted and the government is going beyond their powers. The competing claim of New York City is that this regulation “Promotes public safety by limiting the presence of firearms on city streets”. However, the city did not present any empirical evidence supporting this claim when transporting an unloaded firearm, locked in a container, separated from ammunition.
Understanding these technicalities are imperative as the result of this case could potentially change the way the United States views gun laws for generations to come. If New York city manages to justify their regulations under the Second Amendment, then states will have the justification to effectively, in lack of better terms, ban guns in their states.
The question at hand is if “A New York City rule banning the transportation of a licensed, locked, and unloaded handgun to a home or shooting range outside city limits violate the Second Amendment, the Commerce Clause, or the constitutional right to travel”. The first constitutional problem involves the Second Amendment. This case is extremely important for proponents from both sides of “gun debate”. Vox’s political contributor Ian Millhiser believes it will dictate future gun control laws as a precedent for upcoming regulations or changes. When this case is decided by the Court, it will inevitably dictate the freedom of firearm rights and the regulations associated with them for years to come.
In terms of societal issues, this case will limit or grant the rights of both the city’s powers and the citizens’s rights in terms of gun control. If the Rifle Association wins, then gun restrictions all around the U.S. will become null. However, if New York wins, the country may see numerous states placing gun bans for its residents. It’s also important to note that even if New York City could justify its policy under the Second Amendment, the city fails the Commerce Clause. The Commerce Clause gives Congress the power to “Regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian”. With this clause, the New York City law fails, as its attempts to make residents use shooting ranges within the city; therefore slowing down economic activity beyond city limits. While New York City most definitely will lose in court, their argument under the Second Amendment may make this case may be a golden opportunity for gun reform activists all around the country.
The Current State of the Second Amendment 
I really enjoyed this post, for one you had the confidence to take on a highly divisive issue such as gun control at a university (I should say state really) with highly opinionated views, so kudos to you and your chosen topic. I found this subject particularly interesting, I’ve been keeping up with the democratic presidential campaign recently, and Mike Bloomberg (who was the Mayor of New York) was addressed about his gun control policy. He’s been generally against free carriage, but himself has several guns (and not just pistols either) to protect himself. When asked about the contradiction, he said only that hes threatened several times a day since hes a Mayor and running for president (or I should say was). I wonder if other democrats hold guns themselves, yet advocate for the same policies that New York is currently doing. Gave me something to think about, thanks.
LikeLike
This is a really interesting take on a topic that I have never heard of before. I did not know about this case with New York. I enjoyed how you added your own views and opinions to this. I think it helped me as a reader understand why this matters. The larger conversation that your topic is apart of is always going to be ongoing in our country, especially with the upcoming Presidential Election. I appreciate how you were able to narrow down that topic into a particular issue that most people have not heard about. I found how you included that Commerce Clause into this to be particularly interesting to me. This adds more of a legal part to this. Instead of it being a case of right or wrong, that adds a legal aspect to it that not many people really consider with this topic.
LikeLike
Your post has lots of information and you know the case well. You seem to have formal writing but I want to hear your opinions since this is a blog post. Also, you mentioned that the case is happening currently, maybe you can tell us the date that it starts. In my understanding, you think this case is a good opportunity to get gun control, but how? Overall, I like how you connect your topic to recent events.
LikeLike
I agree that this debate could have a widespread effect on gun control in the United States. The effect however might just cause the Congress to mandate that the law be amended by New York City. The effect on other state gun control legislation may not be as drastic as stated in the blog post. This might prevent other states from adopting premise permits, but I doubt that the Supreme Court would completely ban state regulation of guns. I have trouble seeing how that the Supreme Court would decide on the basis of the Second Amendment. A part of the Second Amendment states, “A well regulated militia…”, which may be an argument for some regulation by individual states. Most states have their own provisions that resemble the Second Amendment, New York being one of the exceptions. The state of New York can argue on the basis of the Tenth Amendment. The state of New York can argue that it is their right as a state to set up guidelines to regulate guns. It is not a solid argument, but there are reasons state constitutions matter.
LikeLike