Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-280_ba7d.pdf
Page Number: 3.0

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

1 

KAVANAUGH, J., concurring 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 18–280 
_________________ 

NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSOCIATION, 
INC., ET AL., PETITIONERS v. CITY OF 
NEW YORK, NEW YORK, ET AL. 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 
APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT 

[April 27, 2020]

 JUSTICE KAVANAUGH, concurring. 
I  agree  with  the  per  curiam  opinion’s  resolution  of  the 
procedural  issues  before  us—namely,  that  petitioners’ 
claim for injunctive relief against New York City’s old rule
is  moot  and  that  petitioners’  new  claims  should  be  ad-
dressed as appropriate in the first instance by the Court of 
Appeals and the District Court on remand. 

I also agree with JUSTICE ALITO’s general analysis of Hel-
ler and McDonald.  Post, at 25; see District of Columbia v. 
Heller,  554  U. S.  570  (2008);  McDonald  v.  Chicago,  561 
U. S. 742 (2010); Heller v. District of Columbia, 670 F. 3d 
1244  (CADC  2011)  (Kavanaugh,  J.,  dissenting).  And  I 
share JUSTICE ALITO’s concern that some federal and state 
courts may not be properly applying Heller and McDonald. 
The Court should address that issue soon, perhaps in one of
the several Second Amendment cases with petitions for cer-
tiorari now pending before the Court.