About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


1 1 (February 14, 2019)

handle is hein.crs/govykl0001 and id is 1 raw text is: Supreme Court Cert Grant Creates Uncertainty in Post-Heller World: Part II February 14, 2019 As discussed in Part I of this two-part Sidebar, the Supreme Court recently granted certiorari in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. City ofNew York, agreeing to review a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (Second Circuit) upholding New York City's effective prohibition on the transportation of certain licensed firearms to locations outside the City. While Part I discusses the Second Circuit's ruling vis-a-vis the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, this part examines two other constitutional issues that the Second Circuit considered and that the Supreme Court has agreed to review: (1) whether New York City's licensing scheme runs afoul of the Commerce Clause by discriminating against interstate commerce; and (2) whether the licensing scheme violates the constitutional right to travel. Although much of the discussion surrounding the case has focused on the Second Amendment, a decision on the Commerce Clause or right-to-travel-issues could have significant implications for state and local firearms regulations. Should the Court strike down New York City's licensing scheme on one of these two grounds, the power of states and localities to enact restrictions on the transportation of licensed firearms within their jurisdictions could be substantially curtailed. Commerce Clause: As discussed in greater detail in Part I, the licensing regime challenged in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association requires a New York City resident to obtain a license to possess a handgun in her home (premises license), and the license authorizes its holder to remove the handgun from the home only (1) to transport it to and from an authorized shooting range within the City or (2) to transport the handgun to and from areas designated by the New York State Fish and Wildlife Law for authorized hunting, so long as the permit holder has received a hunting amendment to the premises license. Among other things, the plaintiffs in the case (three New York City residents and the organizational plaintiff, the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association) have argued that the licensing regime is inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution's Commerce Clause. That Clause, in part, grants Congress the power to regulate Commerce . . . among the several states. On more than one occasion, the Supreme Court and lower federal courts have considered the Commerce Clause's application to federal firearms laws, with a key question being whether the legislation at issue is an appropriate exercise of Congress's power. In the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association case, however, the plaintiffs contend that local Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov LSB10262 CRS Legal Sidebar Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress