© Mark Wilson/Getty Images
The National Sheriffs' Association is leading a coalition of law enforcement and gun rights groups urging the Supreme Court to strike down New York City's gun transportation regulations.
The coalition filed
an amicus (or "friend of the court") brief arguing that the city lacks a legitimate public safety rationale for the rule, which prohibits "premise license" holders from carrying their firearms beyond city lines or to any location besides an authorized gun club. The high court will hear
a challenge to New York's regulations on Dec. 2.
"The public safety interest alleged to support the rule is non-existent and unproven," the brief reads. "There is no proof that premises licensees have ever posed a threat to public safety when transporting their handguns."
"It is also highly implausible that premises licensees would engage in violence when transporting their handguns out of the city," the brief adds. "Licensees undergo exceedingly searching inquiries during the application process, and licenses can be refused for even trivial reasons."
© Alex Wong/Getty ImagesPresident Donald Trump greets representatives of the National Sheriffs’ Association at the White House on February 13, 2018.
To possess a handgun, New York residents must obtain a premises license. That license restricts possession to the address listed on the license itself. The holder may only transport a firearm to authorized shooting clubs within city limits. The plaintiffs in the Dec. 2 case are three city residents and a firearms advocacy group who wish to carry their guns to vacation homes and marksman competitions outside the five boroughs.
Inspector Andrew Lunetta, who leads the New York City Police Department License Division, said in an affidavit that the restrictive transportation rules are necessary to keep weapons confined in the home, as the premises license requires.
"Investigations have revealed a large volume and pattern of premises license holders who are found in possession of their handguns in violation of the restrictions on their license," the affidavit reads.
The National Sheriffs' Association counters that the city should produce specific examples of such violations. City rules require "an investigation and immediate report to the License Division" whenever a license-holder is involved in an incident that draws a police response. As such, the sheriffs group says the NYPD should release those records to prove its claim about wide-spread violations.
Elsewhere in the affidavit, Lunetta warned that striking down the city's gun transportation rules could make it impossible to enforce any restrictions on guns outside the home as a practical matter. He hypothesized that license-holders carrying guns in public would fabricate an explanation about traveling to a second home or shooting competition if stopped by police officers.
The rigorous application process for a premises license further diminishes the public safety rationale for the transport ban, the Sheriff's Association says. Among others things, applicants must appear for an in-person interview; return waivers indicating all members of their household consent to having a gun present; and pass criminal and mental health background checks.
The simple fact of passing those reviews shows a license-holder is not the sort of person likely to commit a crime, the brief argues. In that connection, the sheriffs cite a 2009 article in the Connecticut Law Review showing concealed carry permit holders are "vastly more law-abiding than the public at large.""Licensees undergo searching scrutiny before obtaining a license, comparable groups of permit holders from other jurisdictions have repeatedly been shown to be far more law-abiding than the population as a whole, and most violent crime is committed by individuals with a criminal history who are ineligible to obtain a license," the amicus brief reads.The Trump administration is also supporting the gun rights plaintiffs in Monday's case.A federal trial judge and the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled for the city at earlier phases of the litigation. After the high court agreed to take the case,
the city amended its transportation rules to provide the relief the plaintiffs sought. City lawyers are now
urging the justices to dismiss the case as moot, since the plaintiffs got everything they were seeking in court.
The plaintiffs oppose that course of action. They argue New York could revise its rules again at any time, and lower court decisions upholding the transport ban should be overturned in any event.
The case is No. 18-280 New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. City of New York.
Reader Comments
Absolutely incorrect - federal supremacy is expressly defined in the constitution and has been upheld by the USSC on many occasions. If the feds (or the states) want to pursue it, they can be legally convicted for going against any laws of higher-level jurisdictions, period
Of course, in a big-picture sense (and contrary to the current state of what passes for the "law" in the US), ALL gun laws that infringe on the rights of citizens to keep and bear arms are clearly unconstitutional. However, given that the Constitutional limitations on gov't power have been routinely ignored by the gov't (and upheld by the courts) for many, many years, coupled with the unwillingness of the people so far to hold their gov't to account for violations thereof, these laws are going to be around until the people start to take Jefferson's admonishment that "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants" seriously.
Absolutely incorrect - federal supremacy is expressly defined in the constitution and has been upheld by the USSC on many occasions. "
Federal supremacy in the Constitution requires that federal law be "pursuant to the Constitution" as a condition of supremacy. The second amendment states bluntly that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Federal gun laws, for that reason, cannot be considered to be in accordance with the Constitution's clear prohibition on such laws.
The Romans used daggers on Caesar. The English decapitated their king with an axe. The French guillotined theirs. The Russians shot their czar. The Italians strung up Mussolini on a lamp post. etc., etc., etc.
Also, I think everyone should read Richard Proctors excellent book "Saving the Constitution". It goes through the entire constitution and Bill of rights in plain language and explains not only the meaning, but also how the federal government and supreme court has twisted these documents to suit their power mad greed and corruption.
.
What I realized is the government and the politicians have been faking this "authority" and power for almost as long as America has been a country! The truth is, they truly don't have any legal authority to the power they claim and have been using! It's only by deception and the complicity of the co-opted media that they have any power at all! If the people realized this, they could just put the government back in their place governing those things the constitution allows them to control. ALL of the other power would return to WE the people and to each state as the founders intended. The "supreme" court is the worst of the lot though. They more so then even the politicians, have warped and usurped so much power that it's obscene! They need to be returned to their original intent and sphere of authority, which is actually quite small.