NRA Continues Backing Supreme Court Challenge to NYC’s Travel Ban

new york state rifle & pistol supreme court

New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana)

By NRA-ILA

The New York State Rifle & Pistol Association (NYSRPA) filed its main brief in the United States Supreme Court case NYSRPA, et al v. the City of New York and the New York City Police Department-License Division. The NRA-supported case challenges a New York City ordinance that violates the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding New York City residents by restricting lawful travel with firearms outside of city limits.

“Despite New York City’s transparent attempts to delay and derail this landmark case, it is one step closer to affirming that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms applies outside the home,” said Chris W. Cox, executive director, NRA-ILA. “The more than five million men and women of the NRA are proud to support the NYSRPA in their fight against this unconstitutional law.”

“Every law-abiding New York gun owner should be thankful for the NRA’s support of this suit,” said Tom King, President of NYSRPA.

Over a decade has passed since the high court issued a significant Second Amendment ruling. In 2008, the Court affirmed in District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to have an operable handgun in the home. And in 2010, the Court recognized in McDonald v. City of Chicago that the individual right to keep and bear arms is fundamental and must be recognized by the states. Since those decisions, the court has declined several Second Amendment cases.

“Eventually, New York City will come to realize that the Second Amendment is a right – not a privilege. Until then, NRA members and supporters will continue to fight for their ability to exercise their fundamental freedoms,” concluded Cox.

comments

  1. avatar WI Patriot says:

    Where is Snake Plissken when you need him…???

  2. avatar Mad says:

    The court better rule correctly

  3. avatar NORDNEG says:

    C mon. Donald,,, lets get a couple more Supreme Court judges on board,, then the constitution should be protected for awhile…

  4. avatar barnbwt says:

    “Continues?” Wasn’t the headline from a couple weeks back that they were “now backing” the lawsuit by NYSRPA?

    Wording of the article also makes it sound like the local group is subordinate to the NRA in this endeavor, that the NRA is the prime driver.

    NYSRPA no doubt applauds the support, but that’s no excuse to (finally) show up in the 3rd/4th quarter & act like you carried the team through the entire game.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      One is the local affiliate of the other. So yeah, the NRA has probably been paying for this litigation all along. Same thing out here on the West Coast, where there has been a huge amnount of legal activity. The best part of the NRA, IMO.

      1. avatar HP says:

        This is true. The NYSRPA is the nation’s largest state level NRA affiliate, I think they have something like >40,000 members. But the well would have run dry years ago for this type of stuff without the NRA’s help, the NYSRPA has flat out said so.

  5. avatar Timothy Toroian says:

    Everybody with a gun should move out of the city, we remove the financial district and then see how well the Communist does. Maybe it will become another San Fran. You know, pee and poop in the streets.

  6. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    Well, down-state’s positioning for their several figureheads several national runs finally showed their hand: the mask slips.

    We always knew, but now it’s blatant: bans and confiscation by other means. And the courts sliding toward: “You want that? Make a law.” clarify the positiond more.

    The D folk are getting more “extreme” because they have to get elected not appointed to do their thing; and make a law, not a “dear colleague” letter. Gotta declare out front what they wanna do, when it’s harder to just do stuff with a pen and phone. Sad.

  7. avatar Southern Cross says:

    Does anyone know what the purpose of the law prohibiting taking firearms out of the city?

    1. avatar Jim Bullock says:

      Burden firearms ownership into banning by other means. Unless anybody’s got some other result, or just rationale.

      Bueller?

    2. avatar Craig in IA says:

      The purpose is to allow one to own a firearm but not transport or use it. Since you cannot legally fire the firearm in your home and there are likely no public or even private ranges within the city itself, where are you going to go to shoot? So, you end up with a piece of steel and plastic that cannot be used unless it’s inside your home, where 99.9% of discharges would be against other ordinances. Even self-defense, most likely.

      I am sure, however, that allowances would be made should you decide to take your guns to a city/state-sponsored “buy back program”. Within the city, of course.

  8. avatar GS650G says:

    And the rich connected types get permits quite easily. That fact alone should be grounds for striking it down. Any law unequally enforced is unconstitutional on its face

  9. avatar GlockMeAmadeus says:

    Salt and plastic and guns! Tools of white supremacy!

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email