最高法院将于周一审理这起可能是10多年来最高法院受理的最重大枪支案件的辩论。根据案件进展情况，一个统一的保守多数可能会选择推进枪支权利，远远超出现行法律的范围。
眼下的问题——携带武器的权利是否延伸到家庭之外并延伸到公共广场，以及延伸到多远——可能会为自20世纪60年代以来最重要的第二修正案裁决奠定基础2008heller决定。当时——安东宁·斯卡利亚法官在该案中发表了法院的开创性意见，首次在第二修正案中支持个人携带武器回家自卫和保护家人的权利。
周一的口头辩论是多年诉讼的高潮，2008年Scalia建立了一个框架，为遵守“传统合法目的”的枪支使用制定了宪法保护。在接下来的几年里，疯狂的合法洞穴探险者试图探索heller她的保护是。2013年，纽约市的枪支法成为了此类诉讼的跳板;现在提交给法官的这个案件将决定法庭是否准备好再次倾斜枪支权利。
纽约州步枪和手枪协会，以及罗莫洛·柯兰顿、埃弗雷恩·阿尔瓦雷斯和何塞·安东尼·伊里扎里——三名纽约市居民——已经对纽约市提起诉讼，要求该市挑战其许可证制度，这是该国最严格的制度之一。
纽约市要求潜在的枪支拥有者获得所谓的房屋许可证以便在家里合法拥有枪支。直到最近，通过房屋许可证购买的枪支只能从家中取出，卸下并锁在箱子里，以便运送到批准的射击场进行射击练习。其他特定的运输原因必须得到城市的预先批准。纽约市只有七个公共授权靶场，枪支拥有者不能将他们的武器运送到第二个家或城外的靶场。
枪支控制组织“枪支安全一切城”的诉讼主管埃里克·蒂尔施威尔今年1月在一份新闻稿中表示:“虽然这起案件是关于一项不寻常且有限的地方法规，但它为最高法院提供了一个机会，重申第二修正案为拯救生命、美国人压倒性支持的合理枪支安全法留出了充足的空间。”。
去年11月，纽约民主党十年来第一次夺取了政府的三个政治部门，此后，该党机构承诺推出大胆的进步议程:通过快速审判改革、全面的气候计划和新的性骚扰保护等法案。
然而，在异常富有成效的立法会议中，有一项措施引人注目:一项确认该州枪支所有人特权的法律。纽约市不甘示弱，于7月颁布了自己的规则，扩大了第二修正案的权利。
最高法院几个月前刚刚决定听取手枪协会的上诉，该市和州政府正加班以使该案件消失。其逻辑如下:如果纽约能够废除构成原告异议基础的限制，那么法院就不会有进一步的争议做出裁决。
根据新的规则，纽约州居民现在一般被允许从他们有许可证的任何地方携带枪支到他们被许可拥有的州内任何其他地方。纽约市居民可以将他们的枪支运输到城市范围以外的第二个家庭或靶场，只要他们满足目的地监管机构的许可要求。
在这些变化之前，关于纽约旧枪支法优点的早期迹象(尽管这些法律仍然有效)看起来很有希望。2015年，一名美国地方法院法官对原告不利。2018年，在一家上诉法院做出对该市有利的裁决后，类似的命运降临到了该案上。
直到最近，纽约对自己的立场还有点信心，勇敢地经受住了这些法律障碍和司法机构迄今为止对其推理的审查。但是当最高法院同意审理此案时，一切都变了。
即使2016年去世的安东宁·斯卡利亚法官正在实现民族保守主义运动长期以来的梦想，枪支控制仍然有很大的战斗机会。斯卡利亚的观点列举了一系列对枪支所有权的合法限制，表明枪支管制制度不会因为他的学识而崩溃。事实上，枪支所有权的主要形式heller受保护的意见是在家中保护自己和家人的权利。
但是随着坚定的反监管法官尼尔·戈尔苏奇现在在斯卡利亚的席位上，保守派法官布雷特·卡瓦诺取代了更温和的法官安东尼·肯尼迪，太阳可能已经对枪支限制产生了如此广泛的尊重。
原告辩称，第二修正案的文本——在其保留和轴承武器——不符合仅限于家庭的枪支所有权计划。事实上，手枪协会在其简报中说，这个词熊清楚地表明武器将在“家庭之外”使用。
他们的辩护律师认为，美国的枪支所有权传统清楚地表明，第二修正案将保护“在出现自卫需要时携带上膛枪支的权利”原告们觉得这些限制过于繁琐，简报指出，根据房屋许可证，居民不得“公开或隐藏”携带武器出门这暗示了利益相关者可能坚持的那种扩张性规则:隐藏式规则的广泛扩张，以及可能的开放式规则。
训练和枪法的严格限制——纽约市居民以前只能有效进入7个靶场——是本案的主要争议点。手枪协会认为，2008年被认为受到保护的可靠的家庭防卫需要经常进入靶场练习。该小组认为，毫无疑问，不受限制地进入训练场本身就是第二修正案不可或缺的组成部分，不能像纽约那样受到如此大的限制。
这座城市为这些限制辩护，认为这是美国宪法之前枪支管制丰富历史的一部分。该市指出，1763年的一项市政法规禁止“在任何街道、小巷或小巷”开枪...或者在人们经常步行的任何地方。”这个基础标志着这个城市试图服从文本、历史和传统框架由启用heller。
在公共交通方面，纽约反对手枪协会首先提出这一论点的观点。另外还有一个关于隐蔽携带的许可证，尽管条件更为严格，但也适用于那些想出门携带枪支的持枪者。该市认为，由于本案涉及对房屋许可证限制的质疑，公共运输问题不应由法院审理。
但在本案的核心，有效废除以前的枪支限制是纽约急于解决这一问题的最显著例子。在发布简报时，该市不情愿地提出了论点，只是在注意到法官们应该首先考虑这个案件，因为它实际上无关紧要。
与所有法院一样，最高法院仅限于审理代表以下方面的案件实际的争论而不是发表理论上的咨询意见。在决定什么是争议时，法官会考虑是否有任何正在发生的伤害，或者案件是否纯粹是学术性的。
手枪协会并不认为纽约的法律改革有说服力，告诉法官们，该州的新法律仍然包含着第二修正案范围内的限制。
或许最重要的是，该组织认为，纽约的变化代表了“适宜性原则”的一个重大例外:自愿停止非法行为。根据这一概念，如果被告突然停止非法行为，仅仅是为了提出诉讼，这不应该迫使诉讼被驳回;否则，该系统将容易被滥用。
但是纽约所接受的这种变化并不是“自愿”行为的象征。起草法律并通过州立法机构以获得州长的签名不是一个容易逆转的过程。此外，纽约警察局参与修改城市规则的规则制定过程并不代表任意行为，而是反映了一个更为慎重的过程。
全国步枪协会在最高法院支持纽约手枪协会的案件，但不同意，声称该州的行为根本不合理。
“最高法院看穿了纽约市在这一重要案件中公然试图逃避司法审查的行为，”全美步枪协会ILA分会执行主任贾森·奥密特在纽约试图援引辩诉交易失败后的新闻发布会上说。“这个案例提供了一个全国性的机会来证实一个简单的事实，这个事实是纽约市的政治家们拒绝接受的:我们的第二修正案中保留和携带武器的权利是基本的，当我们离开家园时，这种权利不会消失。”
如果法官们如此渴望避免即将对不可避免的枪支权利问题做出裁决，这个问题可能会成为他们的一个轻松退路。该案的其他内容，如商业条款质疑，可能会为最高法院提供一个额外的后门，如果他们想在不触及热点的第二修正案争议的情况下解决问题的话。
法官们在获得机会时并没有宣布此案无实际意义，这表明他们可能渴望让第二修正案再次在最高法院占据中心位置。
SUPREME COURT COULD EXPAND GUN RIGHTS IN BIGGEST SECOND AMENDMENT CASE IN A DECADE
The Supreme Court on Monday is set to hear arguments in what may be the most significant gun case to grace the high court in over a decade. Depending on how the case proceeds, a unified conservative majority may elect to advance gun rights far beyond the reaches of current law.
The question at hand—whether and how far the right to bear arms extends outside one's home and into the public square—could lay the groundwork for the most consequential Second Amendment ruling since the2008Hellerdecision. Then-Justice Antonin Scalia authored the court's groundbreaking opinion in that case, rooting an individual's right to bear arms for homebound self-defense and defense of one's family in the Second Amendment for the first time.
Monday's oral arguments are a culmination of years of litigation made possible by a framework established by Scalia in 2008, which carved out constitutional protections for firearms uses that abide "traditionally lawful purposes." Over the ensuing years, a frenzy of legal spelunkers sought to explore just how cavernous the scope ofHeller's protection was. In 2013, New York City's gun laws served as a springboard for one such piece of litigation; that case, now presented to the justices, will determine whether the court is ready to lurch gun rights forward once more.
The New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, along with Romolo Colantone, Efrain Alvarez and Jose Anthony Irizarry—three New York City residents—had filed suit against the city to challenge its licensing scheme, one of the most restrictive in the country.
New York City requires would-be gun owners to obtain what's known as apremises licensein order to lawfully possess firearms at home. Until recently, guns purchased through a premises license could only be removed from the home, unloaded and in a locked case, in order to be transported for target practice to an approved shooting range. Other specified reasons for transportation had to receive preclearance from the city. New York City has only seven public authorized ranges, and gun owners could not transport their weapons to a second home or range outside city boundaries.
"While this case is about an unusual and limited local rule, it provides an opportunity for the Supreme Court to reaffirm that the Second Amendment leaves ample room for the kinds of reasonable gun safety laws that save lives and that Americans overwhelmingly support," Eric Tirschwell, litigation director of the gun-control group Everytown for Gun Safety, said in a press release in January.
After New York Democrats last November seized all three political arms of government for the first time in a decade, the state party apparatus promised to deliver a boldly progressive agenda: passing speedy trial reform, a sweeping climate plan and new sexual harassment protections, among other bills.
Yet one measure stood out among the unusually productive legislative session: a law affirming the privileges of gun owners in the state. Not to be outdone, New York City enacted its own rules in July expanding Second Amendment rights.
The Supreme Court had just months earlier decided to hear the pistol association's appeal, and the city and state were working overtime to make the case disappear. The logic went as follows: if New York could abolish restrictions that formed the basis for the plaintiffs' objections, then there would be no further controversy for the court to rule on.
New York State residents are now generally permitted under the new rules to bring their firearms from any place where they have a license to any other place within the state where they are licensed to possess. New York City residents can transport their firearms to second homes or gun ranges outside city limits, as long as they have satisfied the licensing requirements of their destination's regulators.
Before the changes, early signs on the merits of New York's old gun laws (while they were still in effect) had appeared promising. In 2015, a U.S. district court judge ruled against the plaintiffs. A similar fate befell the case in 2018 after an appellate court ruled in the city's favor.
New York was, until recently, somewhat confident in its position, having gamely survived these legal hurdles and scrutiny the judiciary had thus far been applying to its reasoning. But everything changed when the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
Even when Justice Antonin Scalia, who died in 2016, was realizing the long-constrained dreams of the national conservative movement, gun control still had a substantial and fighting chance. Scalia's opinion enumerated a host of lawful restrictions on gun ownership, suggesting that the regime of gun control would not come crumbling down with his scholarship. In fact, the main sort of gun ownership theHelleropinion protected was a right to defend oneself and one's family in the home.
But with the staunchly anti-regulatory Justice Neil Gorsuch now in Scalia's seat, and the conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh having replaced the more moderate Justice Anthony Kennedy, the sun may have set on such broad deference to gun restrictions.
The plaintiffs are arguing that the text of the Second Amendment—in its provision for keeping andbearingarms—does not square with a gun-ownership scheme that is confined to the home. In fact, the pistol association said in its brief, the wordbearmakes plain the notion that arms would be utilized "outside the home."
Their brief argued that gun-ownership traditions in the United States made clear that the Second Amendment would protect "a right to carry a loaded firearm upon one's person should the need for self-defense arise." In rattling off restrictions the plaintiffs find burdensome, the brief notes that residents are prohibited under a premises license from carrying weapons outside the home "either openly or concealed." This hints at the kind of expansive ruling that stakeholders may be holding out for: a broad expansion of concealed-carry and, possibly, open-carry rules.
The severe limitations on training and marksmanship—New York City residents previously had effective access to just seven ranges—were a major point of contention in the case. The pistol association contended that reliable defense of the home, as was deemed protected in 2008, requires regular access to gun ranges for practice. It would then stand to reason, the group argued, that unfettered access to training grounds would itself be an indispensable component of the Second Amendment, one that cannot be limited so substantially as New York had done.
The city, for its part, defended the restrictions as part of a rich history of gun control that predates the U.S. Constitution. The city noted a 1763 municipal rule which forbade the discharge of firearms "in any street, lane or alley... or in any place where persons frequent to walk." This groundwork signaled the city's attempt to obey thetext, history and traditionframework enabled byHeller.
In terms of public carry, New York objected to the notion that the pistol association would raise that argument in the first place. There is another license governing concealed carry that is available, albeit under more stringent conditions, to gun owners who wish to carry outside the home. Because this case involves a challenge to the restrictions of the premises license, the city argued, the public carry issue should not be considered by the court.
But the effective repeal of the former gun restrictions at the heart of the case serves as the most notable example of New York's desperation to quash the issue. In issuing its brief, the city offered arguments reluctantly, only after noting that the justices should, first and foremost, toss the case out because of its practical irrelevance.
The Supreme Court, as with all courts, is confined to considering cases that representactualdisputes rather than issuing theoretical, advisory opinions. In determining what is known as mootness, the justices consider whether there are any ongoing harms being perpetrated, or whether the case is purely academic.
The pistol association did not find New York's legal reforms convincing, telling the justices that state's new laws still contained restrictions well within the Second Amendment's purview.
Perhaps most importantly, the group argued that New York's changes represented a major exception to the mootness principle: the voluntary cessation of unlawful conduct. According to this concept, if a defendant suddenly stops committing unlawful behavior for no other reason than to moot the case, that should not force the litigation to be tossed out; otherwise, the system would be prone to abuse.
But the sorts of changes embraced by New York are not emblematic of "voluntary" behavior. Drafting laws and passing them through the state legislature in order to obtain the signature of the governor is not a process that can be easily reversed. Moreover, the rule-making process the New York Police Department engaged in to revise the city's rules does not represent arbitrary behavior, but rather reflects a more deliberative process as well.
The National Rifle Association, which endorsed the New York pistol association's case at the Supreme Court with a supportive legal brief, disagreed, claiming that the state's conduct was anything but reasoned.
"The Supreme Court saw through New York City's blatant attempt to evade judicial review in this important case," NRA-ILA executive director Jason Ouimet said in a press release after New York unsuccessfully tried to invoke mootness. "This case presents a national opportunity to confirm a simple truth that New York City politicians refuse to accept: Our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is fundamental, and it doesn't vanish when we exit our homes."
This issue could serve as an easy exit for the justices, should they so desire to avoid a forthcoming ruling on an inevitable gun-rights question. Other elements of the case, such as a Commerce Clause challenge, could offer the Supreme Court an additional backdoor to escape from should they want to resolve the issue without touching hot-button Second Amendment disputes.
The fact that the justices did not already declare the case moot when granted the opportunity to do so suggests that they may be eager to let the Second Amendment take center stage once more at the Supreme Court.
