Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-280_ba7d.pdf
Page Number: 33.0

30 

NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSN., INC. v. 
CITY OF NEW YORK 
ALITO, J., dissenting 

to determine: There are only a few bridges and tunnels to 
New Jersey and just a few main thoroughfares to the neigh-
boring New York counties.  A court conducting any form of 
serious  scrutiny  would  have  demanded  that  the  City  pro-
vide  some  substantiation  for  this  claim,  but  nothing  like
that was provided or demanded.

Would  the  situation  be  much  different  if  the  individual 
claimed  to be  headed home  from a  range?    Once  again,  it
would  not  be  difficult for  the  officer  to  check  whether  the 
range was or recently had been open.  And it is not at all 
apparent  that  determining  whether  a  licensee  was  on  a 
route  to  his  or  her  residence  would  be  any  harder  if  the
range at which the licensee claimed to have practiced was 
outside the City. 

Inspector Lunetta’s declaration stated that ranges in the
City are required to keep a record of everyone who practices 
there, and therefore if a person claims to be coming from a 
city range, the officer could easily check that story.  But the 
declaration  does  not  state  that  ranges  in  nearby  jurisdic-
tions  do  not  keep  similar  records.13   It  should  have  been 
easy enough for the City to check, and a court engaged in 

—————— 

13 Inspector Lunetta also expressed concern that officers in other juris-
dictions might detect and report fewer license violations.  App. 80.  But 
Inspector  Lunetta  did  not  support  this  prediction,  and  his  declaration 
gives reason to doubt whether a decrease in referrals will actually occur.
Lunetta explains that the NYPD License Division already receives “re-
ports from [the New York State Division of Criminal Justice System] re-
garding all arrests made within the State of New York for which an ar-
restee is fingerprinted.”  Id., at 86.  But “[n]o formal report is forwarded 
to the License Division for summonses and other arrests and incidents 
for which a detainee is not fingerprinted.”  Ibid.  “[T]he License Division 
may  be,  but  is  not  always,  notified  of  an  arrest”  made  by  the  Federal 
Government  or  authorities  in  another  State.  Ibid.    By  Lunetta’s  own 
account, the NYPD already appears reliant on the State fingerprinting
database to detect violations in other jurisdictions.  There is no reason to 
expect that database to be any less effective today in alerting the License
Division to potential violations than it was under the old ordinance.