Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-280_ba7d.pdf
Page Number: 12

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

9 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

2 

The City vigorously defended its law.  The ordinance did 
not  impinge  on  petitioners’  Second  Amendment  right,  the 
City told the lower courts, and even if it did, the law sur-
vived  heightened  scrutiny.  That  was  so,  the  City  main-
tained,  because  the  travel  restrictions  were  “necessary  to 
protect the public safety insofar as the transport of firearms
outside the home potentially endangers the public.”  City of
New  York’s  Memorandum  in  Support  of  Cross-Motion  for 
Summary Judgt. & Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Pre-
liminary Injunction in No. 13–cv–2115, Doc. No. 36, p. 10. 
To support this assertion, the City relied on the declara-
tion of Inspector Lunetta, which attempted to explain why
the restrictions were “necessary to address . . . public safety
concerns.”  App. 76.  Lunetta justified the law in three ways. 
First,  he  maintained  that  the  restriction  on  out-of-city
transport  promoted  public  safety  by  causing  “premises  li-
cense  holders  [to]  bring  their  firearms  into  the  public  do-
main less frequently.”  Id., at 78; see also id., at 77. 

Second, he claimed that the transport restriction helped 
to  prevent  the  gun  violence  that  might  occur  if  a  licensee
became involved in an altercation while on the way to an
out-of-city  range  or  competition.    Lunetta  asserted  that 
licensees  are  “as  susceptible  as  anyone  else”  to  “stress-
inducing circumstances” that can lead to violence.  Ibid. 

Finally,  he  claimed  that  the  travel  restriction  made  it
simpler for a patrol officer to check whether the holder of a
premises license who is found in possession of a gun outside 
the home is really headed for a range or is simply using that 
as a pretext for carrying a gun.  Id., at 78–79.  He declared 
that  “there  were  several  reported  cases  where  [holders  of
premises  or  target  licenses]  were  charged  with  criminal 
possession  of  a  weapon  when  found  with  their  firearms 
while  not  en  route  to  a  range.”    Id.,  at  89.  He  cited  five 
cases,  id.,  at  88–89,  but  not  one  of  the  opinions  indicates