WASHINGTON: US Supreme Court justices on Monday grappled with whether to dismiss a challenge backed by the powerful National Rifle Association to a New York City handgun ordinance and sidestep a ruling that could lead to an expansion of gun rights.

The nine justices heard arguments in the first major gun case to come before the high court since 2010.

Three local handgun owners and the New York state affiliate of the NRA — a national gun rights lobby group closely aligned with President Donald Trump and other Republicans — argued that the regulation violated the US Constitution’s Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

The court’s four liberal justices indicated they believe the case is moot because New York has since amended the law.

Conservative Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch were most vocal in advocating for the court to issue a ruling. Chief Justice John Roberts, who could be a pivotal vote in the case, said little but asked whether the city residents who challenged the law would face consequences for violations of the prior regulation.

The legal challenge takes aim at a regulation that had prevented licensed owners from taking their handguns to other homes or shooting ranges outside the confines of the most-populous US city. The regulation was amended in July to allow for such transport.

“What’s left of this case?” asked liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. “Petitioners got all the relief they sought.”

Echoing an argument by the challengers, Gorsuch disagreed, saying that the new rule does not specifically protect the gun owners if they make a stop along the way.

Despite the amendment of the measure, the Supreme Court opted to proceed with the arguments. The city had argued that the amendment to the regulation made the matter moot and asked the justices not to hear arguments in the case.

Outside the white marble courthouse, hundreds of gun control supporters held a demonstration and carried signs including some reading, “Why are guns easier to buy than a college education?” “Gun laws save lives” and “2nd Amendment written before assault weapons were invented.”

Gun control advocates have expressed concern that the court, with a 5-4 conservative majority, could use a legal battle over a now-amended regulation unique to one city to issue a ruling widening gun rights nationwide.

Such a ruling could jeopardize a variety of firearms restrictions passed in recent years by state and local governments across the country, including expanded background checks and confiscations of weapons from individuals who a court has deemed dangerous, according to these advocates.

The dispute centers on New York City’s handgun “premises” licenses that allowed holders to transport their firearms only to a handful of shooting ranges within the city, and to hunting areas elsewhere in the state during designated hunting seasons.

The plaintiffs filed suit in 2013 after they were told by authorities they could not participate in a shooting competition in New Jersey or bring their guns to a home elsewhere in the state. The Manhattan-based 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last year that the regulation advanced the city’s interest in protecting public safety and did not violate the Second Amendment.

Gun control laws proliferate

Gun control is a contentious issue in the United States, which has experienced numerous mass shootings. Since 2013, 45 states and the District of Columbia have adopted more than 300 gun control laws, according to the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. Republican opposition in Congress has been instrumental in thwarting passage of new federal laws.

New York City officials have argued that controlling guns in public takes on particular urgency in the most densely populated urban center in the United States, where the potential for violence, accidents or thefts is heightened.

The regulation dated back to 2001 when New York police tightened handgun transport rules because officers had observed license holders improperly traveling with loaded firearms or with their firearms far from any authorized range.

The city argued that the rule did not prevent training as there are plenty of ranges at which to practice within the city, and individuals could rent firearms at competitions farther afield. The rule also did not prevent homeowners from keeping a separate handgun at a second home outside the city.

The Supreme Court had avoided taking up a major firearms case since 2010, when it extended to state and local regulations a 2008 ruling that recognized for the first time that the Second Amendment protects a person’s right to keep a gun at home for self-defense.

The court’s ruling is due by the end of June.

Published in Dawn, December 3rd, 2019