Gun Control

Gun Control Cases to Watch at the Supreme Court

What’s next for the Second Amendment at SCOTUS?

|

The U.S. Supreme Court has not heard a major gun control case since 2010's McDonald v. Chicago, in which that city's handgun ban was struck down for violating the constitutional right to armed self-defense, a right that was itself first recognized by the Court in 2008's District of Columbia v. Heller. In the years since, the Court has had multiple opportunities to weigh the constitutional merits of other gun control laws, but it has declined to hear any of those cases.

Until now. When the Supreme Court reconvenes for its new term in October, a major gun control case awaits the justices. At issue in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. City of New York is a New York City law that forbids licensed handgun owners from possessing, carrying, or transporting their weapons outside of their homes. The only exception is for the transportation of such weapons, unloaded and locked in a container, to and from an authorized gun range within the city.

The New York State Rifle and Pistol Association argues that this restriction violates the right to keep and bear arms. The city "bans its residents from transporting a handgun to any place outside city limits—even if the handgun is unloaded and locked in a container separate from its ammunition," the association notes in its brief, "and even if the owner seeks to transport it only to a second home for the core constitutionally protected purpose of self-defense, or to a more convenient out-of-city shooting range to hone its safe and effective use."

The city argues that its restriction is fully consistent with both the Constitution and Supreme Court precedent. "The core right protected by the Second Amendment is the right to possess a handgun in the home for purposes of self-defense," the city maintains. Therefore, "the City's premises handgun license rule does not substantially burden petitioners' Second Amendment rights."

Does the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms apply outside of the home? That is the fundamental question facing the Court in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. City of New York. How the Court answers that question will have ramifications for the future of gun control laws throughout the nation.

There is another significant case touching on gun rights to watch at the Supreme Court in the days ahead. Last week, the gun manufacturer Remington filed a petition asking the Court to review a March 2019 ruling by the Connecticut Supreme Court that allowed families of the victims of the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting to move forward with a civil lawsuit against the gun maker whose weapon, the Bushmaster XM15-E2S rifle, was used by the killer.

Here's how the Connecticut Supreme Court described the lawsuit at issue in Soto v. Bushmaster Firearms International:

They allege that the defendants knowingly marketed, advertised, and promoted the XM15-E2S rifle for civilians to carry out offensive, military style combat missions against their perceived enemies. Such use of the XM15-E2S, or any weapon for that matter, would be illegal, and Connecticut law does not permit advertisements that promote or encourage violent, criminal behavior.

Such lawsuits against gun makers are generally prohibited by the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act of 2005 (PLCAA), which shields "manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition" from being sued over "the misuse of their products by others." But the Connecticut Supreme Court allowed this particular lawsuit to proceed on the grounds that the PLCAA did not disrupt the state's traditional police power to regulate "advertising that threatens the public's health, safety and morals." The Sandy Hook victims' families, the state high court held, "are entitled to have the opportunity to prove their wrongful marketing allegations" under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act.

Remington wants the Supreme Court to give that ruling a second look. "Because all states have analogous unfair trade practices laws," Remington argues in its petition, "the decision below threatens to unleash a flood of lawsuits nationwide that would subject lawful business practices to crippling litigation burdens." The Supreme Court "must intervene now," Remington maintains, to "correct the Connecticut Supreme Court's misreading of the PLCAA, and prevent a renewed wave of lawsuits of precisely the kind Congress sought to preempt."

If the Supreme Court agrees to hear the case, now known as Remington Arms Co. v. Soto, and then overturns the state court's ruling, similar state lawsuits against gun makers will be effectively barred nationwide. But if the Court declines to hear the case, and thus leaves the state court's ruling in place, a great many such lawsuits will undoubtedly be filed, thereby opening a major new front in the national debate over guns.

Advertisement

NEXT: Free Speech on the Internet Continues to Confuse Everyone

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Both shooters wore headphones.

    1. Hmmm.. Interesting, I’m beginning to see an emerging pattern here..

    2. What?

      1. What’s weird is there is zero talk about it on the net. They both had noise cancelling headphones on though. I don’t even know where to look for conspiracy sites anymore – seems they’ve pretty well shut them down. Or maybe I’m just not trying hard enough to find them. Either way, it’s an interesting factoid that doesn’t negate that people died, but certainly brings into question that there may be more behind the story.

        1. The shooters didnt want to ruin their hearing as they get killed by police?

          *The government/aliens were telling them to shoot innocent people.

          *Its just like a video game where you see the blood and gore but dont hear real life screaming and begging for their lives.

          1. If I had to guess – it could have been a way to relay instructions to the shooters from another location. Who would do that? FBI. Why? I don’t know – political reasons? Gun control? Distraction? Fear tactics?

            If I were a betting man, and the option of “official narrative” wasn’t a choice, my money is on the fbi.

          2. Most of those shooting-oriented noise-canceling headphones are not for listening to music, they are for blocking loud noises, but amplifying small ones. This is useful both on the gun range, where you want to hear talking (especially if you are wearing earplugs as well) and in a home invasion scenario where you want to preserve your hearing but also hear small noises in the dark. Many folks keep such headphones next to their home defense firearm. We need more info regarding what type of headphone these a****les used before drawing conclusions.

    3. Obviously we need more headphone control.
      Otherwise there will be more mass shootings accompanied with bad music.

  2. I earned $5000 last month by working online just for 5 to 8 hours on my laptop and this was so easy that i myself could not believe before working on this site. If You too want to earn such a big money then come and join us.

    CLICK HERE►► payhd.com

  3. What’s next for the Second Amendment at SCOTUS? My hope is that one of the Supremes stands up, says, “I’m sick of listening to this shit”, pulls a gun out from under his robes and shoots some lawyer in the face. Not that he would have a Second Amendment right to do so, of course, but surely to God the Supremes are human beings and, like all normal human beings, have been sorely tempted from time to time to shoot a lawyer in the face. Or a lot of lawyers.

    1. Beating these state’s attorneys about the face and head with a Millwall brick crafted from the bill of rights would suffice, I should think.

    2. Couldn’t such a Justice claim Qualified Immunity, since they are, after all, sort’a law enforcement officers, and have probably never been specifically instructed that it is incorrect to shoot State’s Attorneys during proceedings?

      1. Well, there appears to be no “clearly established law” against shooting a lawyer arguing at the Supreme Court

        I checked

      2. If the justice can convince four others, justices can have absolute immunity.

    3. No Supreme Court justice will shoot someone in the face.
      That’s what they have armed body guards for.

  4. Assuming SCOTUS rules against Remington (seems VERY unlikely), then I guess we can expect to see lawsuits against some auto makers, or tire makers, who like to promote their products by showing dangerous, high-speed auto maneuvers in their ads, thereby promoting seriously dangerous driving?

    1. Every car ad, including ones showing people driving down a city street in daylight, has a disclaimer; “professional driver on a closed course. Do not attempt.”
      So I never buy a car to drive on city streets.
      Better comparison is to ban cars because they involved in EVERY drunken driving crime committed anywhere.
      And driving is a privilege, not a right, so it should be simple to do.

      1. Automobiles are also involved in around 50% of all, non-vehicular, violent crime, from burglaries, robberies, kidnapping, murders, etc. So, based on that, we probably should ban them (sarc)

        1. And if there is any doubt about that, consider asset forfeiture a said cars.

    2. Albert, it is known that people who die in cars are less tragic than people who are shot to death.

      1. Yeah, I keep forgetting that…

  5. Hey tulpa – I hear Jimmy Buffett and Johnny Depp have filed amicus curiae briefs to support your ‘muh pirate ships are protected’ case. good luck to you. Might help. I hear RBG is a Parrothead.

    1. “I hear RBG is a Parrothead.”

      And she personally knew Blackbeard.

      1. Indeed; they dated.

        I wonder two things about her:

        1. Will she live until the end of Trumps term in office, if he is not re-elected?
        2. If not, will she die as soon as he is re-elected?

        I think she’s handing on by her proverbial fingertips.

        1. Odds are she’ll live past Jan. 20th, 2021. Both actuarial odds, and that she’s not likely to be assassinated by a Republican.

          If he isn’t reelected, I suspect she’ll either retire fairly soon after that date, or fall asleep with a pillow on her face. The Democrats sure won’t want to risk her surviving another 4 years after that.

          1. If the Democrats were smart, they would work a deal to get RBG to retire and Trump gets a pick, but its someone the Democrats wont hate.

            Not that RBG would go for that as clearly she only cares about passing away at the Supreme Court

            1. They can’t. They’ve already declared him literally Hitler; Anybody he picks, they have to hate, or else their base will start to doubt them.

              1. True. I laughed when I typed “If the Democrats were smart…”

      2. Who knew Blackbeard liked cougars?

    2. Holy shit I triggered the fuck out of you.

      I guess pointing out that you were wrong and having a bunch of people laugh at you really fucked up your head.

      1. Buy the way, please feel free to restate your position again.

        There are some people in this thread that weren’t present the last time you made a fool of yourself.

  6. “They allege that the defendants knowingly marketed, advertised, and promoted the XM15-E2S rifle for civilians to carry out offensive, military style combat missions against their perceived enemies.”

    Anyone have links to these ads?

    1. Probably not.
      They do not exist.

    2. I did not to a thorough search, but the only tv ad I found actually made by Remington, is here, but it’s for a shotgun, for hunting. https://www.ispot.tv/ad/dgH_/remington-pulling-the-trigger

      As far as print ads, I found dozens in an instant — but those ads were from dealers, not by the manufacturer. I am thinking those “offensive” ads, if they do exist, are probably only run in gun magazines, in print version or otherwise.

      1. You see them in mags like Guns and Ammo, showing guys all rough and ready looking in their tactical gear and preparing to jump out of a helicopter.

        As to whether or not that provides incentive for “civilians to carry out offensive, military style combat missions against their perceived enemies” depends entirely on a persons preconceived notions about the matter.

        1. showing guys all rough and ready looking in their tactical gear and preparing to jump out of a helicopter….. As to whether or not that provides incentive for “civilians to carry out offensive, military style combat missions against their perceived enemies”

          I would think watching heavily armed SWAT team storm troopers kick in doors, while executing dogs, during no-knock gas bill raids would be enough to ignite and incite the inner authoritarian in those sorts much more effectively than a glossy print from Remington.

          1. I am inclined to agree.

          2. “I would think watching heavily armed SWAT team storm troopers kick in doors, while executing dogs, during no-knock gas bill raids would be enough to ignite and incite the inner authoritarian in those sorts much more effectively than a glossy print from Remington.”

            You mean like the stuff one sees police body cameras, or on television cop shows, or movies, or….. ? Yeah, it’s all okay, unless Remington made one.

    3. So what. Not only is that advertising language protected by the 1st Amendment, its truthful that owners can do that, and guns are designed to discharge bullets which can injure or kill.

      These lawsuits are frivolous and the judges should award massive punitive damages to the Defendants, along with costs and attorney fees.

      1. They’re already in it to pay the defendants legal expenses…if, IF the court rules sensibly [John Roberts will likely be the deciding vote, after all] look for beaucoup headlines to the effect of OUTRAGE!!!!
        SANDY HOOK FAMILIES ON THE HOOK FOR REMINGTON’S LEGAL FEES, CAN YOU BELIEVE IT?!?!?!

  7. “The core right protected by the Second Amendment is the right to possess a handgun in the home for purposes of self-defense,”

    I don’t see that anywhere in the amendment. What I do see is the forbidding of the infringement of the right of the people to keep and bear arms with no exceptions for the location of the keeping or bearing.

    1. “They” are still consulting oracles, and reading the bones to divine what the term arms means.. you are waaaay ahead of them.

    2. Well, per Heller, it’s a right to possess them “for all lawful purposes”, and self defense in the home was specifically identified in Heller as a protected lawful purpose.

      So, while I’ll agree with you that self defense is more of a 9th amendment right, the Supreme court has placed it in the 2nd amendment.

      1. Now if only they could define “infringed”.

        1. The current working definition seems to be, “Not utterly obliterated in every possible universe.”

          1. As long as someone, somewhere can exercise it to some degree.

        2. I just contacted my Georgia US Senators, US Representative, and The White House to not only ignore pushes for more gun control but to repeal all current unconstitutional gun control laws, like the National Firearms Act.

          Its time to send these gun grabbers screaming for the hills. Flip around the Propagandist’s pushes for gun control by repealing a gun control law every time they do it.

          If America wont allow more gun control after Sandy Hook shooting in 2012 with Barack Obama as President then America sure as Hell wont allow more major gun control following these two shootings.

          The MSM Propagandists do this every time and push real hard during the start of the two-week news cycle. Then they move onto to some other strategy.

        3. Whoa. whoa. whoooooa.. you just simmer down there, buster.. one tedious bit of sophistry at a time, okay? Next up is How to quantify angels, and the specifics related to the head of a pin”, you’ll get your turn..

  8. Does the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms apply outside of the home?

    Just like the 3rd, the homeless have no 2nd Amendment protections.

    1. Of course not. But hell, even in Kalifornia, a campsite, whether one is homeless or not, is considered a “temporary home,” as are hotel rooms, etc. I have little doubt that Kalifornia will address this “loophole” soon.

  9. “Does the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms apply outside of the home?”
    No more than the first one does.

  10. >>>to and from an authorized gun range within the city

    how the eff do they regulate this clause?

    1. If you’re caught transporting a firearm, you have to prove you were on your way to or from one of those very few authorized gun ranges, or else you’re screwed. They haven’t started body cavity searches at the city boundaries yet.

      1. Yet; don’t underestimate the will of persons like Cuomo and Bloomers

      2. They stop your car (for anything) you have to give them your driver’s license which has your address on it.

        Then they spot the gun. They ask which range you were taking it to/from. If you aren’t on the most efficient route between your home and the range, you are screwed.

        1. Actually, when your license is found to be associated with a gun, they’ll probably search for it, just on general principles. (The principle being, “Harass anybody who owns a gun.”

    2. In my mind, I can imagine someone who is carrying a unloaded handgun in a locked box in the trunk of their car having to, somehow, prove they were on their way to an approved gun range. Maybe a notarized statement stating such, prior to leaving their home, would be a good idea? Yeah, right. Because we know that all would-be robbers and other evil-doers will carefully unload and lock their firearms in a box on their way to the committing the crime in question. Yeah. That’s the ticket. I’m sticking to that.

      1. To Brett’s point. I knew a guy that had a target permit for a .22. I had to ask about it and he basically told me that if you are not on a road between your house and the range, you are going to jail.

        NYC is big about locking you up for whatever, and letting the judge figure it out.

        1. So, I guess if one stops off at a 7-11 on the way to the range, they could, conceivably, charge one with illegal possession of a firearm?

          1. Not only could, would.

            They literally arrest people who are traveling legally with firearms, whose planes get to diverted to NY airports by weather or mechanical problems.

      2. A receipt for range time or some other purchase should suffice but this is about banning guns.

        Nobody in NYC with a gun is safe from being arrested and sent to Riker’s Island.

    3. I’m not sure if its still the case but some years ago you had to notify the NYPD ahead of time with the time you would be leaving your home, the range you were going to (you have to be a member)m what route you would be taking to get there, and what time you would be arriving at the range. Same for returning home from the range

  11. If Roberts can interpret it as a tax, we’re just ducky.

  12. Does the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms apply outside of the home?

    Oh, FFS! Does the First Amendment right to religion and assembly apply outside of the home?

    1. +10000

      Exactly! The courts should sanction New York for enacting a clearly unconstitutional law and award all costs and attorney’s fees to the Plaintiff, New York State Rifle and Pistol Association.

      1. This. Further, disbarment and exclusion from “public service” of everyone instrumental in the enactment, as a slap on the wrist for violating the Constitutional rights of millions.

  13. With an evenly divided court, it is likely going to be up to Roberts to make the call on these cases.

    Wager, anyone?

    1. 5-4

      1. For or against plaintiffs?

        1. I would say against NYC.

          1. I will drink to that; in about an hour.

  14. Yeah however they rule I’m not giving my guns up. Progressive Democrats have made it clear they hate white men who don’t agree with them so I can imagine what they’ll do once we’re disarmed.

    1. Good point CDRS; Obama made it pretty clear that in order to make progress on gun control [disarmament] that “society” will need to change. They are sure as hell working it.

  15. The city argues that its restriction is fully consistent with both the Constitution and Supreme Court precedent. “The core right protected by the Second Amendment is the right to possess a handgun in the home for purposes of self-defense,” the city maintains. Therefore, “the City’s premises handgun license rule does not substantially burden petitioners’ Second Amendment rights.”

    The City’s arguments are purposeful lies. All they have to do is read the 2nd Amendment and it does not say what they claim.

    Too bad there are not really any negative financial consequences for government entities to bring frivolous appeals and then lose.

    Individuals get sanctioned by the courts for that but not government entities.

    1. Heck, even if there weren’t a 2nd amendment, the city is basically arguing that people who live there are serfs, bound to the land.

      18 U.S. Code § 926A. Interstate transportation of firearms

      “Notwithstanding any other provision of any law or any rule or regulation of a State or any political subdivision thereof, any person who is not otherwise prohibited by this chapter from transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm shall be entitled to transport a firearm for any lawful purpose from any place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm to any other place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm if, during such transportation the firearm is unloaded, and neither the firearm nor any ammunition being transported is readily accessible or is directly accessible from the passenger compartment of such transporting vehicle: Provided, That in the case of a vehicle without a compartment separate from the driver’s compartment the firearm or ammunition shall be contained in a locked container other than the glove compartment or console.”

      NYC can not, legally, prohibit you from transporting a firearm, if it would be legal for you to possess it at your destination. And a city does not have jurisdiction over its citizens outside the city’s boundaries, so unless you’re a felon or a minor, there’s ALWAYS going to be someplace outside the city where you could legally possess it.

      1. IOW, the only constitutional issue here is whether a city can make it unlawful for you to do something outside that city. Serfdom!

        Otherwise, it’s pure statutory law, and an open and shut case against NYC.

        1. I would say that the constitutional issue is whether infringement from the 2A means that no local, state or federal government or agency can make any law limiting the People’s right to keep and bear Arms.

          This would allow federal District courts to squash these ridiculous laws immediately instead of waiting until a lawsuit reaches the SCOTUS.

          …but yeah, NYC should have their ass handed to them when they claim that they can make it unlawful to do something unlawful outside New York City.

          1. Wouldn’t be the first time in recent memory that the courts
            racked them across their knuckles for forgetting where their authority, and jurisdiction ends..

          2. The Supreme court will normally avoid any constitutional issues if they can decide a case on statutory grounds, and that goes double for anything gun related.

            OTOH, this is a gun related statute, and one protective of rights, so they’ll be reluctant to enforce it.

            1. I was kind of hoping RBG would be gone my now and a good constitutional justice like Gorsuch was added to the SCOTUS, so even if Roberts does the Potomac Two Step, it will still be 5-4 for enforcing the protections of the 2A.

      2. Yup. Democrats want the Commerce Clause to be so powerful, then it can be used to preempt state law regarding weapons.

        The good part is that Lefties are losing the battle for gun rights.

        The bad part is it can be dangerous for concealed carriers to travel as Blue cities around the USA try to ban guns. One wrong move on an interstate passing through one of these cities can lead to an unauthorized search of the vehicle and find some violation of their local gun laws.

        1. Don’t forget the threat from the right as well. Trump is all too willing.

          1. That’s true, but he’s not into political suicide, so if the NRA tells him this is a bridge too far, he’ll relent.

            1. The NRA hasn’t had the best track record either. Henceforth why the Firearms Policy Coalition and the GOA are gaining in popularity as an alternative to the NRA.

            2. And don’t forget…that in the midst of all this the NRA is consumed with inner turmoil.

              Trump is a wild card; while I still much prefer him to any other known alternatives at this point, I would never make a wager on a man without principles.

              1. Yepper.
                He’s volatile and capricious.

                Many Republicans conveniently forget that his familial heritage evolved straight out of the New York corruption machine.
                Many of his supporters (not all) are sycophants and apologists not daring to question dear leader. Many of that ilk spread their sheisse on here.

                1. Yet Trump scares the shit out of Lefties, so much so that they need to attempt a coup to remove him.

                  1. And he scares lots of small government conservatives and libertarians as well.
                    And if you do not know why by now you’re in denial.

                    1. Yeah, what they don’t quite understand is that you don’t have to approve of Godzilla to approve of him kicking King Ghidorah’s ass. You just have to think he leaves a narrower wake of destruction.

                      Trump isn’t any gem, but gems aren’t on offer. He’s the medium baddy we’ve embraced to stop worse baddies from taking power.

                      Meanwhile the NeverTrump liberalitarians want the perfect to be the enemy of the survivably bad, with the predictable result of the unsurvivable bad ending up in power. By trying to take Godzilla out while he’s busy with King Ghidorah, they’re actually taking King Ghidorah’s side in the fight.

                      And they somehow expect us not to notice.

  16. 2A reads, “…the right of the PEOPLE…”, not “the right of each residence/address”.

  17. New York City… always has been a thorn in the ass for freedom. It was a Loyalist stronghold in the Revolution and seems it never quite acclimated to the Republic.

  18. “…a New York City law that forbids licensed handgun owners from possessing, carrying, or transporting their weapons outside of their homes.”

    God forbid someone who isn’t a limousine liberal with armed bodyguards be allowed to carry a firearm to defend themselves in the streets of New York City.
    Just think of the poor muggers, rapists and murderers getting shot to death by someone defending themselves or their families.
    What a horrible thought.
    Then the quota for violent criminals in NYC will go down substantially, and no wants that.

    1. Just think of the poor muggers, rapists and murderers getting shot to death by someone defending themselves or their families.

      +1 Bernard Goetz

      1. Good old Bernie. Back when men were men and New York was a goddamn real city.

  19. Interesting; Remington is really a 1st Amendment case, an opportunity for SCOTUS to determine if a state can differentiate between commercial and any other kind of speech. I’ve often wondered how, if “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech”, from where does it get the power to define kinds of speech (commercial, hate, on-air, political…), so that it can abridge those?

    1. If the Court is every going to abandon that fake distinction, it isn’t going to be in the context of guns, where there are currently 4 Justices guaranteed to take the “but, guns!” position.

  20. Nevermind the transport. What good is having a unloaded gun locked in the trunk?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.