Justice Department Asks SCOTUS to Overturn NYC Gun Control Law

hillary clinton concedes angry mad pissed off

(AP Photo/Matt Rourke)

Elections have consequences.

“New York City’s transport ban infringes the right to keep and bear arms guaranteed by the 2nd and 14th Amendments,” Solicitor General Noel Francisco argued in a friend of the court brief Wednesday.

Francisco asked the court to “confirm” that the Second Amendment also protects the right of a “law-abiding, responsible citizen to take his firearms outside his home, and to transport it to other places — such as a second home or a firing range — where he may lawfully possess that firearm.”

One provision of the law at issue blocks licensed individuals from removing a handgun from the address listed on the license except to travel to nearby authorized small arms range/shooting clubs.

Ariane de Vogue in Justice Department urges Supreme Court to overturn NYC gun law


  1. avatar barnbwt says:

    DOJ’s suggested scope of carry “freedom” isn’t much better than NYC’s…

    1. avatar Dale says:

      Exactly what I was thinking. It almost seems like the government knows NY will lose, and is trying to get out in front of the ruling, by supporting/arguing for a much less sweeping decision.

    2. avatar dwb says:

      Roberts court is only going to rule in the most narrow fashion, based on this particular set of facts.

      People who are hoping for some broad smackdown are going to be disappointed.

      The USG brief is pretty much along the lines of what I expect from the Robert’s court: “keep” includes the right to transport it elsewhere where its lawful.

      If the Robert’s court wants to opine on outside the home carry they will take Roger’s v Grewal (NJ carry case). They asked for a response from NJ, and there is a clear circuit split, so I think that there is a good chance that they take the NJ carry case.

    3. avatar Southerner says:

      Indeed, the brief submitted by the Executive Branch gives a passing nod to “the right to bear arms” then transmutes “bear” to only support mere “transport.” Suggesting the Second Amendment only protects transport in a manner that virtually prohibits any meaningful access for the core right of self defense.

  2. avatar Jerry says:

    Same Solicitor General wrote a brief last week in the Kettler case stating suppressors are not covered by the 2nd Amendment and upholding the unconstitutional NFA tax. And yes, he was appointed by Trump.

    Thanks for nothing DoJ!

    1. avatar Bob Jones says:

      Suppressors are not firearms so their possession is not a right. If you want one, pay the measly $200 tax and buy one.

      1. avatar Texheim says:

        The $200 doesn’t hurt, it’s the criminally slow approval process that hurts.

        1. avatar mrvco says:

          I’d buy a suppressor today if all I had to do was pay up for the $200 stamp.

        2. avatar JS says:

          …or living in a state that bans them outright…

      2. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

        Don’t get me wrong Bob, I own suppressors.
        But I’ve always thought that has got to be the biggest tax per dollar on anything here in the U.S.

        1. avatar barnbwt says:

          200$ tax for a 1000$ “nice” suppressor…the Trump tariffs on China are 25%, short term capital gains can be as high as 37%. I’d bet that cigarettes on the East Coast are taxed more than anything, possibly even marijuana in the places where you can pay off the local cops to not rat you out to the feds. IIRC, the average net tax rate for people that actually work for a living is somewhere around 25% depending on where you live.

        2. avatar FedUp says:

          It was enacted as a $200 tax on a $8 Maxim from your friendly neighborhood hardware store.

          In my case, it’s a $200 tax on a $200 muffler for my .22.

      3. avatar Biatec says:

        Bob Jones The right to bear arms not fire arms. This includes all weapons and accessories and ammo. I can’t believe you said that it does not include suppressors. It includes malware and viruses too. Sounds like I am joking but I am not.

      4. avatar Nickel Plated says:

        They got serial numbers and 4473 forms that go along with them just like firearms. So which is it? Either way you try to argue it. They dont belong in the NFA category. Not that the whole NFA category belongs to begin with.

        Mgazines are not firearms either……

      5. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        Bob Jones,

        A firearm can operate perfectly fine without a mechanical safety. And a mechanical safety (one or two small metal pieces) is certainly not a firearm. Therefore, government can ban safeties, correct?

        If your answer is, “No! Government has no legitimate authority to ban firearm safeties.”, then government also has no legitimate authority to ban suppressors, which are also safety equipment. Suppressors are safety equipment because they reduce hearing damage/loss and improve the accuracy of the operator. (Suppressors improve accuracy because they significantly reduce recoil which improves follow-up shots and reduces the tendency to flinch in anticipation of recoil.)

      6. avatar barnbwt says:

        That $200 was over three thousand adjusted for inflation, and at present it’s over a year to get approval even *after* Uncle Sam takes his extortion. Take $3000 of your own dollars & shove them.

        And suppressors most assuredly constitute ‘arms,’ which is why their was such a crucial desire for the government to restrict them in the first place. Pool noodles aren’t ‘arms,’ hence you should take note of the lack of regulations surrounding pool noodles.

      7. avatar Reason says:

        Bob – Per the federal definition stocks, triggers, sights ect. are not firearms either. (unless we are talking bump stocks and auto sears) only the receiver. For that matter neither is ammo. So by your reasoning those can be taxed out of the hands of the average person or banned out of existence?

      8. avatar Shire-man says:

        I’d like to see uniform enforcement of a $200 tax and 9 month wait on all tubes, washers or any other suppressor component. Either these things are super cereal and the NFA is justified in which case all components should be treated super cereally or tubes are just tubes and the wait and tax are bullshit concepts.

        Getting your hands on a silencer really drives home how stupid this all is. Look at my dangerous tube. So dangerous I had to wait 9 months. Now I’m special because the government trusts me enough to cash my check and let me have my special dangerous tube. Better not repeal the NFA because then I wouldnt be as special and my tube wouldnt be as dangerous.

        1. avatar Andrew Lias says:

          Ever looked up freeze plugs on Amazon? You’ll find you’re getting “people also bought” mag lites and other such similar objects. It’s frickin hillarious.

      9. avatar enuf says:

        The highly regulated status of a suppressor drives up the cost. Between that high cost and the high tax to be permitted to own one, the total price is well beyond my means.

        Which is the entire point of regulating them in this manner. To deny me a natural born right under false pretenses by means of artificial and exorbitant economic and bureaucratic burdens.

        1. avatar barnbwt says:

          *cough* machine guns *cough*

      10. avatar Chris Mallory says:

        The Federal government was not given any authority to ban them. The 9th Amendment says owning one is a right.

      11. avatar John in Ohio says:

        “Suppressors are not firearms so their possession is not a right.”

        Oh, really? Does not the individual have a right to posses property that violates nobody else’s rights? Under your definition, the individual doesn’t have a right to posses harmless property if it is not a firearm.

        The individual does indeed have a right to posses a suppressor as basic property. Further, as it is a legitimate accessory to a firearm, the individual does have a right to posses it under the Second Amendment. This is further bolstered by the fact that it has a legitimate militia use.

      12. avatar MattG says:

        Taken to the extreme – we’ll all be walking around with serialized receivers with no barrels, magazines or ammunition because those items aren’t considered firearms.

      13. avatar Vic Nighthorse says:

        Ever read the 9th amendment, Bob?

      14. avatar Hannibal says:

        Detachable magazines are not firearms either. So it’s okay to ban them? Note that the definition of “firearm” is very limited in US law.

    2. avatar neiowa says:

      Thanks for point this out. Here is where you can contact DOJ on the matter.


    3. avatar VicRattlehead says:

      I’d love to have a supressor (or 2 or 3) for the greatly reduced hearing risk, as well as a simple courtesy for my neighbors. However, the asinine cost to get one, along with the unforgivably long wait time, puts them squarely in the ‘not gonna happen’ category for me.

      A supressor is a pretty simple device, that does require some decent materials to be used to make a quality version but they shouldn’t cost more than 200-300 bucks, maybe 500 tops. The only reason they cost twice that (along with a $200 permission slip on top of that) is because the volume is kept artificially low by pointless gov’t regulation.

      A case could be made for most things being on the NFA list (though I’d argue that they ALL are gross infringements) but suppressors are one of the most idiotic items on that list. There is no reasonable, sensible or even remotely made up reason why they should be regulated.

    4. avatar Pg2 says:

      Suppressors prevent tinnitus. Public health issue.

  3. avatar Fudds McKenzie says:

    Interesting but one infringement more or less in NY is a drop in the bucket. The request for strict scrutiny is the main event. Doesn’t say anything about that in the cnn article, I wonder if its in the brief

    1. avatar dwb says:

      The fact the Giffords and other anti groups are requesting the mean-end 2a-twostep (even strict scrutiny) tells you all you need to know. Read Gura’s brief. Strict scrutiny or means-end scrutiny is no real protection because judges have too much discretion and in fact some applications of strict scrutiny might end up being watered down rational basis.

      1. avatar Fudds McKenzie says:

        Oh sure, I’m not placing much hope on it in any case. Of course what the court made in 1938 or so, that is the levels of scrutiny, they can change or unmake pretty easily. If they go 100% pro-gun in this case it would take 10-30 years to find out if strict scrutiny means anything on 2A cases. But it is the most interesting part of that case, which isn’t saying much.

        Anyway, I’m just wondering where the DOJ stands, atm.

  4. avatar enuf says:

    About this Solicitor General guy:

    Got his start as a lawyer working the Bush recount in Florida. Moved back and forth in government/private work. Back into government under Trump.

  5. avatar Darkman says:

    I must protest the use of That Hags picture in this article. Please for the love of God. STOP torturing us.

  6. avatar Bubba5 says:

    How is the picture of the devil relevant?

  7. avatar C Lang says:

    I suspect that the biggest supporter of the $200 tax are suppressor makers. Without the $200 the pric would be less than 1/2 in days…

    1. avatar FedUp says:

      …and the sales volume would go up 10-100x

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