For the first time in nearly 10 years, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments regarding gun law and the 2nd Amendment Monday. The opening arguments centered on the New York City Gun Traveling Laws. However, it remains unclear how much further forward the case will actually go.
The case, New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. City of New York, challenges draconian travel restrictions against New Yorkers possessing a premises license.
Supreme Court Opening Arguments on NY Gun Travel Law
“It has been ten years since the Supreme Court took a Second Amendment case, and this one could have far reaching ramifications,” said Second Amendment Foundation’s Alan M. Gottlieb. “The last time the court ruled on the Second Amendment was in 2010 with McDonald v. City of Chicago, our landmark victory that incorporated the Second Amendment to the states via the 14th Amendment.
That decision came on the heels of 2008’s landmark District of Columbia v. Heller win. Heller brought a decision that recognized the right to possess a firearm for purposes of home protection. That right to protect the home then applied to all via the 2010 McDonald win over Chicago.
But on Monday, several court Justices attempted to downplay the New York case. Several cited New York’s accessions made the case moot. However, many in the 2A community see those accessions to this case as an attempt to avoid another Supreme Court loss on guns.
“The Petitioners have gotten the relief that they sought,” said Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, according to foxnews.com. Justice Sonia Sotomayor called it “a case in which the other side has thrown in the towel and completely [given] you every single thing you demanded in your complaint for relief…,” reported foxnews.com.
If the Court ultimately decides to dismiss the case, that could happen soon. However, if the case proceeds, it will likely extend far into 2020.
“We will be watching this closely,” Gottlieb said. “The City of New York, and any other government body for that matter, should not be allowed to trample on a constitutional right and then change a law at the last minute to avoid being penalized for their demagoguery.”