Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-280_ba7d.pdf
Page Number: 16.0

Cite as:  590 U. S. ____ (2020) 

13 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

and therefore this case is not moot.  This is so for the fol-
lowing reasons. 

A 
First, this case is not moot because the amended City or-
dinance and new State law do not give petitioners all the 
prospective  relief  they  seek.    Petitioners  asserted  in  their 
complaint  that  the  Second  Amendment  guarantees  them,
as  holders  of  premises  licenses,  “unrestricted  access”  to 
ranges,  competitions,  and  second  homes  outside  of  New
York City, App. 36, and the new laws do not give them that.4 
The new City ordinance has limitations that petitioners
claim are unconstitutional, namely, that a trip outside the 
City must be “direc[t]” and travel within the City must be
“continuous  and  uninterrupted.”    38  N. Y. C.  R.  R.  §§5– 
23(a)(3), (a)(7).  Exactly what these restrictions mean is not 
clear from the face of the rule, and the City has done little 
to clarify their reach.  At argument, counsel told us that the 
new rule allows “bathroom breaks,” “coffee stops,” and any 
other “reasonably necessary stops in the course of travel.” 
Tr. of Oral Arg. 36, 64.  But the meaning of a “reasonably 
necessary” stop is hardly clear.  What about a stop to buy 
groceries just before coming home?  Or a stop to pick up a 
friend  who  also  wants  to  practice  at  a  range  outside  the
City?  Or a quick visit to a sick relative or friend who lives
near a range?  The City does not know the answer to such 
questions.  See, e.g., id., at 65–66. 

—————— 

4 Contrary  to  the  City’s  suggestion,  see  Reply  to  Suggestion  of Moot-
ness 5, petitioners have not softened their stance over the course of this
litigation.    At  summary  judgment,  petitioners  asked  that  the  District
Court declare 38 N. Y. C. R. R. §5–23 unconstitutional and enjoin its en-
forcement “in any manner that prohibits or precludes [petitioners] from 
traveling” with their handguns to a range, competition, or second home
outside the borders of New York City.  Notice of Cross-Motion for Sum-
mary Judgt. in 13–cv–2115, Doc. No. 43, p. 1; Plaintiffs’ Memo, at 32; and 
Plaintiffs’ Reply Memorandum, Doc. No. 53, p. 9 (emphasis added); see
also Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Doc. No. 9, p. 1.