Can senseless gun regulations
ever be constitutional?

New York City's successful defense of its arbitrary restrictions on transporting
handguns highlights judicial disrespect for the Second Amendment.

By Jacob Sullum. December 4, 2019

New York's uniquely onerous restrictions on transporting guns were so hard to justify that the city stopped trying. Instead, it rewrote the rules after the Supreme Court agreed to consider a constitutional challenge to them, and now it argues that the case is moot.

Despite the obvious vulnerability of New York's regulations, the city successfully defended them for five years, obtaining favorable rulings from a federal judge and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit.

That track record highlights a glaring problem the Supreme Court could address if it rejects the city's mootness claim: More than a decade after the justices recognized that the Second Amendment imposes limits on gun control, lower courts routinely treat the right to keep and bear arms as a minor hindrance that can be overcome by the slightest excuse.

Under New York's rules, licensed pistol and revolver owners were not allowed to leave home with their handguns, even if they were unloaded and stored in a locked container separate from the ammunition, unless they were traveling to or from one of seven gun ranges in the city. .....

"Restrictions on fundamental rights usually pass muster only if they are narrowly tailored to further a compelling government interest — in this case, preventing 'gun violence.' "

smalline

Back to Top