Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-280_ba7d.pdf
Page Number: 13

10 

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

that the licensee claimed to be headed to a range or compe-
tition outside the City.3 

The District Court denied petitioners’ motions for prelim-
inary  injunction  and  summary  judgment  and  granted  the 
City’s cross-motion for summary judgment.  86 F. Supp. 3d 
249, 261–263 (2015).  The District Court deemed any bur-
den on petitioners’ Second Amendment right “minimal or, 
at most, modest.”  Id., at 260.  And the court credited the 
City’s public safety rationale, citing the Lunetta declaration
approvingly and discussing the importance of the travel re-
strictions in limiting the movement of licensees with their 
handguns.  See id., at 262. 

The Second Circuit affirmed.  The panel derided the ordi-
nance’s burdens on petitioners’ Second Amendment right as 
“trivial” and expressly credited Lunetta’s explanation of the
public safety purposes served by the travel restriction.  883 
F. 3d 45, 63–64 (2018).

When petitioners filed a petition for certiorari, the City
opposed review, contending, among other things, that the 
travel restriction promoted public safety, as demonstrated 
by  Lunetta’s  declaration  (which  the  City  cited  six  times).
Brief in Opposition 9, 21–23.  We nevertheless granted re-
view  on  January  22,  2019,  and  this,  as  noted,  apparently
led the City to reconsider whether the travel restriction was
actually needed for public safety purposes. 

C 
On April 12, the NYPD published a proposed amendment 
to  the  travel  restriction  that  was  admittedly  spurred  at 
—————— 

3 In  one  case,  the  violation  charged  was  transporting  a  loaded  gun. 
People  v.  Schumann,  133  Misc.  2d  499,  507  N. Y. S.  2d  349  (Crim.  Ct. 
1986).  In another case, the gun was not in a locked container.  People v. 
Thompson, 92 N. Y. 2d 957, 705 N. E. 2d 1200 (1998); see also People v. 
Lap, 150 Misc. 2d 724, 570 N. Y. S. 2d 258 (Crim. Ct. 1991) (loaded and 
unlocked).  In the other two, there is no mention of an out-of-city range. 
Lugo v. Safir, 272 App. Div. 2d 216, 708 N. Y. S. 2d 618 (2000); People v. 
Ocasio, 108 Misc. 2d 211, 441 N. Y. S. 2d 148 (1981).