The Supreme Court of the United States has decided to take on their first major Second Amendment case in nearly a decade. This case involves the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York regarding a New York law that restricts the transportation of guns under a specific permit. The state of New York offers two different kinds of gun licenses pertaining to handguns including a carry license and a premise license. A carry license allows the gun owner to transport the gun in limited circumstances such as for “target practice, hunting, or self defense”. The premise license allows someone to “have and possess in his dwelling” a handgun. Both gun lobbyists and gun control activists are intently following this case due to the potential it has to change the course of gun legislation. 

The three plaintiffs each have a premise licenses and hope to gain the legal ability to “transport their handguns to shooting ranges and competitions outside New York City.” One plaintiff also seeks to transport his gun from his home in New York City to his second home in Hancock, New York. These actions are prohibited by the current laws, but these requests are only slightly challenging the principle of a premise license. This minor legal dispute has the potential to spark a revolution when it comes to gun laws because of the precedent it could set. This means the verdict will be implemented in all lower courts and states, affecting future cases regarding the Second Amendment. 

When the Supreme Court granted certiorari, New York changed their laws to fit what the plaintiffs had been asking for. The City of New York clearly did this because they are aware that this case will result in a loss for gun control activists in addition to setting a “unfavorable” precedent for future Second Amendment cases. Yet, as of now the case is still to be heard by the Court. There has been significant controversy surrounding the question of whether or not this case should be dismissed as moot due to New York’s newly implemented laws regarding gun transportation.  

Article III of the Constitution states that judicial power can only be applied to cases and settling disputes in cases they have chosen to review. Since the license issue has technically been resolved by New York City law, gun control advocates hope the case will be dismissed as moot. The plaintiffs have continued fighting for this case to be taken to the Supreme Court, arguing that the city has “abruptly shift[ed] gears” in order to “avoid a precedent setting loss and to frustrate” any legal review. They are arguing that the “voluntary cessation” exception to mootness, which states that a defendant does not hold the right to automatically moot a case by abruptly ending the claimed unlawful conduct, applies here. 

The 2008 case of District of Columbia v. Heller was the last Second Amendment case heard by the Supreme Court. In a 5-4 decision, the Justices concluded that to outlaw handguns and forbid people from storing their firearms in a functional manner violates the Second Amendment. This is because these actions impair people’s ability to protect themselves from danger, even in a safe manner. The decision of this case is important to note because it sets a precedent for New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York. 

In comparison to the timely process of forming legislation and passing a bill through Congress, the implications resulting from this case will have immediate effects on gun legislation. The virtually instantaneous impact this case could have on the future of gun legislation is yet another reason why both gun control and gun rights advocates are following this case through each step. Now that Justice Brett Kavanaugh has replaced the more moderate Anthony Kennedy, it seems that there will be a greater likelihood that if this case does make it to the Supreme Court, the results will be in favor of gun rights advocates.  

What this means for gun control advocates:

This case has the potential to change the course of gun control laws against the desires of gun control advocates. After the mass shooting in Newton, Connecticut in 2012, which killed twenty school-aged children, the issue of gun control has become a popular topic of debate and the movement regarding gun control was set in motion. Since then, the gun control movement has grown on a national scale. If this case reaches the Supreme Court, the progress and advancements the movement has made thus far will regress. This is because through this case, a future precedent will be set for the lower courts, which will inevitably result in more lenient laws regarding guns. 

What this means for gun rights advocates:

This case could be exactly what gun rights advocates have been hoping for: more rights and freedoms when it comes to gun laws. The plaintiffs of this case are pushing for a new and lenient set of guidelines when it comes to gun control laws. Most likely, the decision of this case will end in favor of those who support and defend access to guns and their freedoms. This Supreme Court decision will broaden the scope of the Second Amendment and will result in what many gun control advocates have feared and fought so adamantly against: more freedoms regarding gun laws and access.  

However, even if the case is dismissed and the argument behind mootness is won by the City of New York, there are many more Second Amendment cases waiting to be heard by the Supreme Court. Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Neil M. Gorsuch have both expressed an interest in taking more Second Amendment cases to the Supreme Court. It is likely that it is just a matter of time before the Court expands its scope of the Second Amendment, which will halt the fight for gun control.