Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-280_ba7d.pdf
Page Number: 29.0

26 

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

Another is to take a gun outside the home in order to trans-
fer ownership lawfully, which the City also allows.  §5–26(j).
And still another is to take a gun to a range in order to gain 
and maintain the skill necessary to use it responsibly.  As 
we  said  in  Heller,  “ ‘to  bear  arms  implies  something  more 
than the mere keeping [of arms]; it implies the learning to
handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep 
them ready for their efficient use.’ ”  554 U. S., at 617–618 
(quoting T. Cooley, Constitutional Law 271 (1880)); see also 
Luis v. United States, 578 U. S. ___, ___ (2016) (THOMAS, J., 
concurring in judgment) (slip op., at 3) (“The right to keep 
and bear arms . . . ‘implies a corresponding right . . . to ac-
quire and maintain proficiency in their use’ ”); Ezell v. Chi-
cago,  651  F. 3d  684,  704  (CA7  2011)  (“[T]he  core  right 
wouldn’t mean much without the training and practice that
make it effective”).

It is true that a lawful gun owner can sometimes practice
at a range using a gun that is owned by and rented at the 
range.  But the same model gun that the person owns may
not be available at a range, and in any event each individ-
ual gun may have its own characteristics.  See Brief for Pro-
fessors  of  Second  Amendment  Law  et al.  as  Amici  Curiae 
10–12;  see  also  App.  51,  56,  59  (referencing  differences
across ranges and shooting competitions). Once it is recog-
nized that the right at issue is a concomitant of the same
right recognized in Heller, it became incumbent on the City
to justify the restrictions its rule imposes, but the City has 
not done so.  It points to no evidence of laws in force around
the time of the adoption of the Second Amendment that pre-
vented gun owners from practicing outside city limits.  The 
City argues that municipalities restricted the places within 
their jurisdiction where a gun could be fired, Brief for Re-
spondents 18, and it observes that the Second Amendment
surely does not mean that a New York City resident with a 
premises  license  can  practice  in  Central  Park  or  Times 
Square, id., at 21.  That is certainly true, but that is not the