No. 18-280
In the

Supreme Court of the United States
NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSOCIATION,
INC., ROMOLO COLANTONE, EFRAIN ALVAREZ,
and JOSE ANTHONY IRIZARRY,
Petitioners,
v.
THE CITY OF NEW YORK and THE NEW YORK
CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT-LICENSE DIVISION,
Respondents.
On Writ of Certiorari to the United States
Court of A ppeals for the Second Circuit

Suggestion of Mootness
Jeffrey L. Fisher
O’Melveny & Myers LLP
2765 Sand Hill Road
Menlo Park, CA 94025
A nton Metlitsky
Jennifer B. Sokoler
O’Melveny & Myers LLP
Times Square Tower
7 Times Square
New York, NY 10036

Zachary W. Carter
Corporation Counsel
of the City of New York
100 Church Street
New York, NY 10007
(212) 356-2500
rdearing@law.nyc.gov
Richard Dearing*
Claude S. Platton
Elina Druker
Ingrid R. Gustafson
Susan Paulson

Brad N. Garcia
O’Melveny & Myers LLP
1625 Eye Street, NW
*Counsel of Record
Washington, DC 20006
Counsel for Respondents
289753

 i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
TABLE OF CONTENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i
TABLE OF APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii
TABLE OF CITED AUTHORITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  iii
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
STATEMENT  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
I.  This case is moot  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
A.  There is no longer a case or controversy
because the changes in state and
mu n ic ip a l l aw g i ve p et it ione r s
 
all they seek  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
B.  None of p et it ioner s’ objec t ions
 
to ordering dismissal has merit . . . . . . . . . 13
II.   Even if the case were not moot, the
proper course would still be to dismiss it
 
without reaching the merits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

 ii
TABLE OF APPENDICES
Page
Appendix A
  Notice of Adoption of Final Rule Amending
Chapters 5 and 16 of Title 38 of the Rules
  of the City of New York . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1a
Appendix B
  Chapter 104 of the Laws of New York, 2019,
and Sponsor’s Memorandum in Support of
 Legislation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12a

 iii
TABLE OF CITED AUTHORITIES
Page
Cases:
Ala. Hosp. Ass’n v. Beasley,
  702 F.2d 955 (11th Cir. 1983) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Allen v. Wright,
  468 U.S. 737 (1984)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc.,
  568 U.S. 85 (2013)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Alvarez v. Smith,
  558 U.S. 87 (2009) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15, 16
Ashwander v. TVA,
  297 U.S. 288 (1936) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Bain v. Cal. Teachers Ass’n,
  891 F.3d 1206 (9th Cir. 2018) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Bd. of Pub. Util. Comm’rs v.
Compania Gen. De Tabacos De Filipinas,
  249 U.S. 425 (1919)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11, 18
Berry v. Davis,
  242 U.S. 468 (1917)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Bowen v. Kizer,
  485 U.S. 386 (1988) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11, 16, 17

 iv
Cited Authorities
Page
Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v.
W. Va. Dep’t of Health & Human Res.,
  532 U.S. 598 (2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez,
  136 S. Ct. 663 (2016) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Chi. & Grand Trunk R. Co. v. Wellman,
  143 U.S. 339 (1892)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Chi. United Indus. v. City of Chi.,
  445 F.3d 940 (7th Cir. 2006) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
City of Mesquite v. Aladdin’s Castle,
  455 U.S. 283 (1982) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
City News & Novelty v. City of Waukesha,
  531 U.S. 278 (2001)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno,
  547 U.S. 332 (2006) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Decker v. Nw. Envtl. Def. Ctr.,
  568 U.S. 597 (2013)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Diffenderfer v. Cent. Baptist Church,
  404 U.S. 412 (1972)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11, 18
Fed’n of Adver. Indus. Representatives, Inc. v.
City of Chi.,
  326 F.3d 924 (7th Cir. 2003) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

 v
Cited Authorities
Page
Friends of the Earth, Inc. v.
Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. (TOC), Inc.,
  528 U.S. 167 (2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
Fusari v. Steinberg,
  419 U.S. 379 (1975)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Hall v. Beals,
  396 U.S. 45 (1969) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9, 10
Honig v. Doe,
  484 U.S. 305 (1988) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Hunt v. Cromartie,
  526 U.S. 541 (1999)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Kremens v. Bartley,
  431 U.S. 119 (1977)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14, 15, 18
Lamar Adver. of Penn, LLC v.
Town of Orchard Park,
  356 F.3d 365 (2d Cir. 2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Lewis v. Cont’l Bank Corp.,
  494 U.S. 472 (1990)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8, 12, 17
Mosley v. Hairston,
  920 F.2d 409 (6th Cir. 1990) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Nat’l Archives & Records Admin. v. Favish,
  541 U.S. 157 (2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17

 vi
Cited Authorities
Page
Ne. Fla. Chapter of Associated Gen. Contractors
of Am. v. City of Jacksonville,
  508 U.S. 656 (1993) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Preiser v. Newkirk,
  422 U.S. 395 (1975) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Raines v. Byrd,
  521 U.S. 811 (1997)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v.
Comer,
  137 S. Ct. 2012 (2017)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Troiano v. Supervisor of Elections,
  382 F.3d 1276 (11th Cir. 2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
U.S. Bancorp Mortg. Co. v. Bonner Mall P’ship,
  513 U.S. 18 (1994)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
U.S. Dep’t of Justice v. Provenzano,
  469 U.S. 14 (1984)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
United Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council v.
Mayor and Council of Camden,
  465 U.S. 208 (1984) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11, 18
U.S. Dep’t of Treasury v. Galioto,
  477 U.S. 556 (1986)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10, 16, 18

 vii
Cited Authorities
Page
United States v. Alaska S.S. Co.,
  253 U.S. 113 (1920)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
United States v. Chesapeake & Potomac Tel. Co.,
  516 U.S. 415 (1996) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8
United States v. Juvenile Male,
  564 U.S. 932 (2011)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
United States v. Microsoft,
  138 S. Ct. 1186 (2018)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11, 14
WildEarth Guardians v. Pub. Serv. Co.,
  690 F.3d 1174 (10th Cir. 2012)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Statutes and Rules:
N.Y. Penal Law § 265.00  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
N.Y. Penal Law § 400.00  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2, 7
N.Y.C. Charter § 1043  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5, 6
Rules of the City of N.Y.
 

38 R.C.N.Y. ch. 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

 

38 R.C.N.Y. § 5-22 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3, 6

 

38 R.C.N.Y. § 5-23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2, 3, 6, 13

 viii
Cited Authorities
Page
Other Authorities:
13C Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller &
Edward H. Cooper, Federal Practice and
 Procedure § 3533.6 (3d ed. 2008) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18

 1
INTRODUCTION
The Court granted certiorari in this case to decide
whether a New York City regulation violated the Second
Amendment or another constitutional guarantee insofar
as it banned the “transport[ of] a licensed, locked, and
unloaded handgun to a home or shooting range outside
city limits.” Pet. for Cert. i. Two subsequent changes in
law render that question—and this litigation—moot. First,
the City has amended the challenged regulation to enable
holders of premises licenses to transport their handguns
to additional locations, including second homes or shooting
ranges outside of city limits. Second, the State of New
York has amended its handgun licensing statute to require
localities to allow holders of premises licenses to engage
in such transport. Independently and together, the new
statute and regulation give petitioners everything they
have sought in this lawsuit. The Court should accordingly
vacate the decision below and remand with instructions
to dismiss—or at least to consider in the first instance
whether any Article III case or controversy still exists.
We respectfully also request that this Court rule on
this motion as soon as is reasonably practicable. In light
of the changes in state and municipal law, the City no
longer has any stake in whether the Constitution requires
localities to allow people to transport licensed handguns
to second homes or firing ranges outside of municipal
borders. So the City has no legal reason to file a brief
addressing that substantive question on the merits. What
is more, various organizations that might have views
relating to the question presented—and that might have
been considering filing bottomside amicus briefs—are
caught in limbo, not knowing whether this case is going

 2
forward. The sooner this Court resolves to dismiss this
case, or that it should follow some other path, the better
for all involved.
STATEMENT
1. The scheme for licensing handgun possession in
New York City derives from a New York State statute,
New York Penal Law § 400.00 (Consol. 2019). The statute
recognizes two main types of handgun licenses. First, a
“premises” license allows a “householder” to possess a
handgun “in his dwelling,” or a “merchant or storekeeper”
to possess a handgun “in his place of business.” Id.
§ 400.00(2)(a), (b). Second, a “carry” license permits the
licensee to have and carry a concealed handgun in public.
Id. § 400.00(2)(c)–(f).
New York law charges local officials with implementing
the state licensing regime. Id. §§ 265.00(10), 400.00(3)(a).
In New York City, the designated licensing official is the
Commissioner of the New York City Police Department
(NYPD). The NYPD Commissioner has promulgated
rules regulating the possession of handguns by licensees.
See 38 Rules of the City of New York (R.C.N.Y.), ch. 5.1
The City’s rules recite that a handgun possessed
under a premises license—the only type of license
at i ssue here — must genera l ly be kept at “ t he
premises which address is specified on the license.” Id.
§ 5-23(a)(2). At the same time, to ensure that persons can
make proper and effective use of their premises licenses,
1.  The Rules of the City of New York are available online at
http://www.amlegal.com/codes/client/new-york-city_ny/.

 3
the rules create certain exceptions. In particular, the rules
authorize licensees to transport their handguns (unloaded
and secured in a locked container, with the ammunition
carried separately) for several specified purposes. For
example, with the advance written permission of the
NYPD, licensees may transport a handgun to a gunsmith.
Id. § 5-22(a)(16). Furthermore, when this lawsuit began,
licensees could transport a handgun directly to and
from any shooting range or shooting club authorized by
the NYPD. Id. § 5-23(a)(3). The NYPD authorized eight
civilian firing ranges located within city limits, seven
of which were open to anyone holding a valid handgun
license. J.A. 92–93.
At the time of this lawsuit’s filing, the City’s rules did
not allow persons with a premises license to transport their
handguns to shooting ranges or shooting competitions
outside of city limits. Nor did the rules make any provision
for transport to a second home.
2. Petitioners—three individuals with New York City
premises licenses and the New York State Rifle & Pistol
Association—brought this lawsuit in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York against the
City of New York and the NYPD License Division. They
sought to challenge two aspects of the City’s transport
rules for premises licenses. J.A. 26 – 48. First, the
individual petitioners alleged that the transport rules
prevented them from taking their handguns to shooting
ranges and shooting competitions outside the City.
J.A. 32–33. Second, one petitioner also asserted that the
transport rules prevented him from taking his handgun

 4
from his New York City residence to a second home that
he owns in upstate New York. J.A. 32. 2
Petitioners claimed that the transport restrictions
at issue violated several constitutional guarantees: the
Second Amendment, the dormant Commerce Clause,
the right to interstate travel, and the First Amendment.
J.A. 36–37. They requested only declaratory and injunctive
relief, not any form of damages. J.A.  48. Specifically,
petitioners sought to enjoin the City from enforcing its
prohibition against premises licensees transporting
their licensed handguns beyond city limits to a shooting
range, shooting competition, or second home. Id.; see also
Notice of Cross-Mot. for Summ. J. 1, S.D.N.Y. ECF No.
43 (seeking order allowing them “to attend a shooting
range or competition or to travel to a second home”);
Reply Mem. of Law in Support of Cross-Mot. for Summ.
J. 1, S.D.N.Y. ECF No. 53 (arguing that the City’s rule is
unconstitutional in “its application to an individual who has
a second home outside of New York City and its application
to an individual who would like to travel to a shooting
range or shooting competition outside of New York City”).
3. The district court granted summary judgment
against petitioners on all of their claims. Pet. App. 42–76.
4. The Second Circuit affirmed. Pet. App. 1–39. Before
the panel and in their petition for rehearing en banc,
petitioners reiterated that “the only places [they] seek to
2.  As to the organizational plaintiff, the complaint alleged
only that its members “participate in numerous rifle and pistol
matches within and without the City of New York on an annual
basis.” J.A. 27.

 5
transport” their licensed handguns are “shooting ranges
or second homes.” Pet. for Reh’g En Banc 1, 2d Cir. ECF
No. 124; see also Pet. App. 7. 3 The Second Circuit held
that petitioners’ constitutional claims failed as a matter
of law. Pet. App. 8–38.
5. Petitioners then sought certiorari in this Court.
They asked the Court to decide “[w]hether the City’s ban
on transporting a licensed, locked, and unloaded handgun
to a home or shooting range outside city limits is consistent
with the Second Amendment, the Commerce Clause, and
the constitutional right to travel.” Pet. for Cert. i. The
Court granted the petition. 139 S. Ct. 939 (2019).
6. About three months later, the NYPD announced
proposed amendments to its transport rules with respect
to premises licenses. As required by New York City
Charter §  1043(b)(1)-(3), the NYPD published a notice
of the proposed rulemaking in the City Record and
forwarded the notice to the City Council, the Corporation
Counsel, community boards, local news media, and local
civic organizations. The NYPD has explained that it
undertook the rulemaking in light of the continuation
of this litigation and a state-court ruling regarding the
availability of handgun licenses for second homes. See App.
3a–4a (Notice of Adoption of Final Rule).
A month after publishing the proposed amendments,
NYPD held a public hearing. App. 1a. Then, on June 21,
3.  On appeal, petitioners stopped expressly breaking out
their claim regarding shooting competitions. This is perhaps
because the shooting competitions they have in mind take place
at gun ranges. See J.A. 34.

 6
2019, after reviewing written comments and receiving
certification from the Corporation Counsel and Mayor’s
Office, NYPD published notice of adoption of the final rule.
The final rule took effect on July 21, 2019. N.Y.C. Charter
§ 1043(f)(1)(c).
To start, the amended rules expressly codify various
pre-existing practices in the interest of providing clarity
for licensees. In particular, the amended rules provide
that a licensee may transport a handgun from the
place of purchase to the premises of the licensee, and
from the licensee’s premises to the offices of the NYPD
License Division or the licensee’s local police precinct,
when authorized by the rules. App. 9a–10a (38 R.C.N.Y.
§ 5-23(a)(5), (6)). The amended rules further permit
transport of a licensed handgun to a firearms dealer with
the NYPD’s written permission. App. 10a (38 R.C.N.Y.
§ 5-22(a)(16)).
Most relevant here, the amended rules also expand
the transport authorizations in the prior rules to allow a
premises licensee to transport a handgun directly to and
from:
•  Another residence, or place of business, of the
licensee where the licensee is authorized to have
and possess a handgun, whether located within or
outside New York City; and
•  A lawful small-arms range or shooting club, or a
lawful shooting competition, whether located within
or outside New York City.
App. 8a–9a (38 R.C.N.Y. § 5-23(a)(3)). Thus, the amended
rules no longer prohibit a premises licensee from taking

 7
a licensed handgun out of the home to attend a shooting
range or shooting competition outside the City, or from
transporting a handgun to the licensee’s second home
outside the City.4
7. Separate from the NYPD’s amendments to its
transport rules, on July 16, 2019, the Governor of New
York signed a bill amending New York Penal Law
§ 400.00(6), effective immediately, to allow state premises
licensees to transport their handguns. As specifically
relevant here, the new law permits premises licensees to
transport their pistol or revolver from one location where
they may legally possess such weapon, directly to “any
other location where [they are] lawfully authorized to have
and possess” such weapon, and specifically references
other dwellings or places of business, shooting ranges,
and shooting competitions. App. 14a (N.Y. Penal Law
§ 400.00(6)). This law overrides any inconsistent state or
local law. See id.
ARGUMENT
I.  This case is moot.
The new state law, as well as the City’s amendments
to its regulations, independently and together render
this case moot. This Court should vacate the decision
below and remand with instructions to dismiss—or at
least with instructions directing the lower courts to apply
Article III principles in the first instance to the current
4.  The NYPD also has clarified that the authorization to
transport a handgun to another residence or place of business
of the licensee includes the ability to transport a handgun when
moving to a new premises. See App. 6a.

 8
circumstances. See, e.g., United States v. Chesapeake &
Potomac Tel. Co., 516 U.S. 415 (1996) (per curiam).
A.  There is no longer a case or controversy
because the changes in state and municipal
law give petitioners all they seek.
1. “No principle is more fundamental to the judiciary’s
proper role in our system of government than the
constitutional limitation,” embedded in Article III, “of
federal-court jurisdiction to actual cases or controversies.”
Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811, 818 (1997) (quoting Simon v.
E. Ky. Welfare Rights Org., 426 U.S. 26, 37 (1976)). That
is, federal courts may exercise their authority “only in
the last resort, and as a necessity in the determination
of real, earnest and vital controversy” between parties.
Chi. & Grand Trunk R. Co. v. Wellman, 143 U.S. 339, 345
(1892); see also Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 752 (1984).
“If a dispute is not a proper case or controversy, the courts
have no business deciding it, or expounding the law in the
course of doing so.” DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547
U.S. 332, 341 (2006).
A core Article III principle is the concept of mootness.
“Throughout the litigation, the party seeking relief must
have suffered, or be threatened with, an actual injury
traceable to the defendant and likely to be redressed by a
favorable judicial decision.” United States v. Juvenile Male,
564 U.S. 932, 936 (2011) (per curiam) (internal quotation
marks omitted). Therefore, if an event transpires while an
appeal is pending that deprives the parties of “a personal
stake in the outcome of the lawsuit,” the case becomes
moot and must be dismissed. Lewis v. Cont’l Bank Corp.,
494 U.S. 472, 477–78 (1990) (internal quotation marks
omitted). For an appellate court to proceed under such

 9
circumstances to decide the case on the merits would be
to issue an “advisory opinion[] on abstract propositions
of law.” Hall v. Beals, 396 U.S. 45, 48 (1969) (per curiam).
And “[h]owever convenient” or tempting that might be, the
Court lacks the power to declare “principles or rules of
law which cannot affect the result” of the lawsuit before it.
United States v. Alaska S.S. Co., 253 U.S. 113, 116 (1920).
2. An intervening change in law entitling plaintiffs
to everything they seek is a classic event that renders
litigation moot. A century ago, for instance, various
carriers sought an injunction restraining the Interstate
Commerce Commission from requiring certain actions
the carriers argued the Commission lacked the ability to
prescribe. When the case reached this Court, lawmakers
turned their attention to the matter and enacted new
legislation precluding the Commission from requiring
the actions at issue. Id. at 115. The Court held that “the
necessary effect” of the new statute was “to make the
cause a moot one.” Id. Because the plaintiffs no longer
“need[ed] an injunction” to do what they wished to do,
the only “proper course” was to “remand the cause to the
court below with directions to dismiss.” Id. at 116.
In the years since, the Court has reaffirmed these
basic principles time and again. For instance, in Hall
v. Beals, plaintiffs argued a residency requirement for
voting was unconstitutional and sought an order enjoining
it. 396 U.S. at 46–47. After this Court noted probable
jurisdiction, the state legislature reduced the requirement
from six to two months, thus rendering all of the plaintiffs
qualified to vote. Because that change gave the plaintiffs
everything they sought in their lawsuit, the case “lost its
character as a present, live controversy of the kind that
must exist if [the Court is] to avoid advisory opinions on

 10
abstract propositions of law.” Id. at 48. The Court thus
“remanded with directions to dismiss the cause as moot.”
Id. at 50.
In United States Department of Treasury v. Galioto,
477 U.S. 556 (1986), the plaintiff sought an injunction
invalidating a law that forbade him—as someone previously
involuntarily committed to a mental institution—from
purchasing a firearm. After oral argument, Congress
enacted new legislation permitting such persons to
obtain administrative approval to purchase firearms.
Id. at 559. The Solicitor General then suggested that the
claims before the Court may be moot. The Court agreed,
explaining that, in light of the intervening legislation, the
plaintiff could “no longer … contend[]” he was prohibited
from taking the action he sued for the right to undertake.
Id. at 559–60. 5
5.  The Solicitor General’s position in Galioto was consistent
with the position the federal government has taken in other
cases with similar facts. For example, in Decker v. Northwest
Environmental Defense Center, 568 U.S. 597 (2013), the
plaintiff sought, among other things, an injunction requiring
the defendant to obtain a permit under the Clean Water Act for
certain discharges into navigable waters. After the Court granted
certiorari and on the eve of oral argument, the Environmental
Protection Agency promulgated amendments to the regulation
at issue, making clear no such permits were necessary. Noting
that requests for injunctive relief turn on “the law in effect at the
time of [a court’s] decision,” the Solicitor General argued that the
amendments rendered the plaintiffs’ demand for an injunction
requiring a permit moot. Supp. Br. for United States at 5, Decker v.
Nw. Envtl. Def. Ctr., 568 U.S. 597 (2013) (No. 11-338). The Court did
not disagree and maintained jurisdiction only to decide whether
other claims, unaffected by the amendment, were meritorious.
Decker, 568 U.S. at 604–05; see also, e.g., United States’ Suggestion

 11
And just last year, the Court dismissed as moot
United States v. Microsoft, 138 S. Ct. 1186 (2018) (per
curiam), in similar circumstances. The Court explained
that legislation enacted after oral argument had amended
the statute at issue, terminating any dispute between the
parties “over the issue with respect to which certiorari
was granted.” Id. at 1188. The Court’s two-page order,
finishing with a single paragraph declaring the case moot,
reflected how straightforward and uncontroversial its
determination was.6
of Mootness at 2, United States v. Chesapeake & Potomac Tel.
Co., 516 U.S. 415 (1996) (No. 94-1893) (“Because the provision
under challenge in these cases has now been repealed [after oral
argument], the cases are now moot.”).
6.  There are many similar dismissals. See Bowen v. Kizer,
485 U.S. 386, 387 (1988) (per curiam) (new legislation enacted
after case was briefed and argued mooted case); U.S. Dep’t of
Justice v. Provenzano, 469 U.S. 14, 15–16 (1984) (per curiam)
(new law enacted after grant of certiorari rendered case moot
because Freedom of Information Act requests must be “judged
under the law presently in effect”); United Bldg. & Constr. Trades
Council v. Mayor and Council of Camden, 465 U.S. 208, 213–14
(1984) (repeal, after grant of certiorari, of municipal residency
requirement “moot[ed] appellant’s equal protection challenge
based on that durational requirement”); Diffenderfer v. Cent.
Baptist Church, 404 U.S. 412, 414 (1972) (per curiam) (intervening
legislation rendered lawsuit seeking injunctive relief moot because
availability of such relief turns on the “law as it now stands, not as
it stood when the judgment below was entered”); Bd. of Pub. Util.
Comm’rs v. Compania Gen. De Tabacos De Filipinas, 249 U.S.
425, 426–27 (1919); Berry v. Davis, 242 U.S. 468, 470 (1917); see
also Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305, 341 (1988) (Scalia, J., dissenting)
(referencing settled rule that a case is moot where, after a grant
of certiorari, “the law has been changed so the basis of the dispute
no longer exists”).

 12
3. The same straightforward analysis applies in this
case. Petitioners seek declaratory and injunctive relief
against the City’s former rule preventing them from
transporting licensed handguns (1) “to attend a gun
range” or “shooting competition” outside of the City; and
(2) to a second home outside of the City. J.A. 48 (complaint);
see also Pet. for Cert. i (question presented in this Court);
Cert. Reply 1 (reiterating that petitioners seek only
“the modest ability to transport their licensed firearms,
unloaded and locked away separate from ammunition, to
a shooting range or second home outside city limits”); Pet.
App. 7 (similar recitation of claim in court of appeals).7
The new state legislation unequivocally allows
plaintiffs to do everything they ask for. That legislation
amended the section of the New York Penal Law
regulating handgun licenses. The amendments allow
holders of premises licenses to transport their pistol or
revolver directly to or from any other location where they
may legally possess it, and specifically refer to shooting
ranges, shooting competitions, and other dwellings or
places of business where they are authorized to have the
firearm. App. 14a. These new amendments also operate
notwithstanding any inconsistent state or local law. They
accordingly moot the case all on their own.
7.  Petitioners’ complaint also seeks attorney’s fees and
costs, and it asks for any other relief that is just and proper.
J.A. 48. But a request for fees and costs is “insufficient to create
an Article III case or controversy where none exists on the merits
of the underlying claim.” Lewis, 494 U.S. at 480. So, in these
circumstances, is a boilerplate request for any other relief the
court deems just and proper. See Bain v. Cal. Teachers Ass’n, 891
F.3d 1206, 1212–13 (9th Cir. 2018); WildEarth Guardians v. Pub.
Serv. Co., 690 F.3d 1174, 1191 (10th Cir. 2012).

 13
The City’s new regulation only confirms this case is
moot. Just like the new state law, it allows people with
premises licenses to transport their handguns, without
geographic limitation, to shooting ranges, shooting
competitions, or “another residence, or place of business,
of the licensee, where the licensee is authorized to possess
[his or her] handgun.” App. 9a (38 R.C.N.Y. § 5-23(a)(3)).
Petitioners therefore have no ongoing injury, and the
City has no ongoing interest in the constitutionality of
prohibiting people licensed to possess handguns in their
homes from taking their guns to second homes, shooting
ranges, or shooting competitions outside city limits. The
municipal regulation that prohibited those activities no
longer exists.
B.  None of petitioners’ objections to ordering
dismissal has merit.
Even though this Court’s practice of ordering cases
dismissed as moot where an intervening change in law
gives plaintiffs everything they want has become so wellsettled as to be routine, petitioners previously signaled
they may resist such a disposition. In a letter filed on
April 19, 2019, petitioners complained that the City’s new
regulation was intended to “frustrate this Court’s review”
of the Second Amendment arguments they are asserting.
Letter at 3. They also contended that the City’s new rule
could “raise serious voluntary cessation concerns” because
the City defended the old one until it was changed. Id. But
none of this hand-waving alters the basic fact that this
case should be dismissed for lack of any continuing case
or controversy.
1. It does not matter that this Court’s grant of
certiorari contributed to NYPD’s decision to amend its

 14
rules and may have contributed to the State’s decision to
change its law. Advances in pending litigation (and the
accompanying prospect of a court decision) commonly
spur new laws or regulations. Sometimes a realization
regarding “the very merit of the [plaintiff’s] claim
le[ads] the defendant to capitulate before judgment.”
Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. W. Va. Dep’t of
Health & Human Res., 532 U.S. 598, 617 (2001) (Scalia,
J., concurring). Other times a defendant simply decides
that the continued “cost of litigation—either financial
or in terms of public relations—would be too great.”
Id. In still other instances, this Court’s grant of review
commands the attention of busy policymakers in a way
that a previously simmering dispute did not—spurring
them to act on an issue that had been on their radar but
that they had put to the side in favor of other matters that
seemed more pressing. Cf. Microsoft, 138 S. Ct. at 1187.
In any of these scenarios, new legislation or regulations
giving plaintiffs all they seek moots the case. See, e.g.,
Buckhannon, 532 U.S. at 601 (noting that new legislation
prompted by plaintiffs’ lawsuit mooted case); Fusari v.
Steinberg, 419 U.S. 379, 385 & n.9 (1975) (remanding
case without reaching merits even though “this Court’s
notation of jurisdiction” may have contributed to state
legislature’s decision to amend the law at issue); Kremens
v. Bartley, 431 U.S. 119, 128–29 (1977) (“The fact that
the Act was passed after the decision below [and after
this Court noted probable jurisdiction] does not save the
named appellees’ claims from mootness.”). Simply put,
governmental defendants are entitled, even after fighting
for years, to reconsider their positions. That, in fact, is a
primary purpose of litigation like this—to pressure the
governmental actors to agree to a demand. And where

 15
other actors who are not even parties to the litigation
(such as the State here) change their laws in ways that
accommodate plaintiffs’ grievances, their motives for
doing so are all the more irrelevant. All that matters
is whether the plaintiffs’ purported injuries have been
redressed. If so, there is no longer a case or controversy.
2. Nor, as should already be clear, does it matter
under Article III whether plaintiffs want to keep litigating
instead of accepting their victory. It is hornbook law that
parties cannot confer Article III jurisdiction on courts that
otherwise lack it. “[A] dispute solely about the meaning of
a law, abstracted from any concrete actual or threatened
harm, falls outside the scope of the constitutional words
‘Cases’ and ‘Controversies.’” Alvarez v. Smith, 558 U.S.
87, 93 (2009).
Time and again, therefore, this Court has ordered
cases dismissed—or at least sent back to lower courts for
Article III analyses—where intervening developments
seemingly mooted a case but plaintiffs nonetheless
implored the Court to decide it. See, e.g., Already, LLC
v. Nike, Inc., 568 U.S. 85, 102 (2013); Alvarez, 558 U.S.
at 93; Hall, 396 U.S. at 48–49. This Court has done so
even where it has recognized the constitutional issues it
granted review to decide are of the utmost importance and
the plaintiffs “earnestly seek a decision on the merits.”
Kremens, 431 U.S. at 136. Article III is absolute. No
matter how “convenient for the parties and the public” it
would be to have guidance on the scope of a constitutional
provision, Ashwander v. TVA, 297 U.S. 288, 345 (1936)
(Brandeis, J., concurring), there is no substitute for the
requirement that the arguments the plaintiffs press be
“embedded in an[] actual controversy about the plaintiffs’

 16
particular legal rights,” Alvarez, 558 U.S. at 93. Put
another way, this Court may not “rule on a plaintiff’s
entitlement to relief” simply because he “won’t take ‘yes’
for an answer.” Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct.
663, 678, 683 (2016) (Roberts, C.J., dissenting). 8
3. Finally, there is no basis for petitioners’ suggestion
that the “voluntary cessation” doctrine might apply in
this case. Letter at 3. That doctrine holds that a party
may not evade judicial review, or defeat a judgment, by
“temporarily altering questionable behavior.” City News &
Novelty v. City of Waukesha, 531 U.S. 278, 284 n.1 (2001).
Just like any other litigant, therefore, a governmental
entity cannot moot a case simply by announcing that it will
no longer engage in a certain practice or enforce a certain
policy. See, e.g., Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia,
Inc. v. Comer, 137 S. Ct. 2012, 2019 n.1 (2017). But, for two
reasons, this doctrine does not apply here.
First, an actor other than the City has taken action
that prevents the City from resuming the conduct
8.  Petitioners also complain that respondents have “procured
a precedential decision” from the courts below upholding the prior
law. Letter at 3. But this Court’s jurisprudence already accounts
for “the unfairness of according preclusive effect to a decision
that [a party] had tried to appeal but could not.” U.S. Bancorp
Mortg. Co. v. Bonner Mall P’ship, 513 U.S. 18, 22 (1994). In that
circumstance, the Court “reverse[s] or vacate[s] the judgment
below and remand[s] with a direction to dismiss,” eliminating any
precedential effect of the prior decision. Id. (quoting United States
v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36, 39–40 (1950)); see also Bowen,
485 U.S. at 387 (issuing such an order where a change in law
mooted the case); Galioto, 477 U.S. at 559–60 (same). Respondents
recognize that such action would be appropriate here.

 17
petitioners challenged. Specifically, the State of New York
has changed its law and provided that any conflicting
municipal law is invalid. See supra at 7. Because the new
state law prohibits respondents from reverting to the prior
rules even if they wanted to, the “voluntary” prong of the
voluntary cessation doctrine is not implicated here. See,
e.g., Lewis, 494 U.S. at 482 (dismissing claim that state
law violated the Commerce Clause as moot in light of
intervening amendment to federal law); Bowen, 485 U.S.
at 387 (dismissing a lawsuit challenging agency inaction
as moot where Congress passed a law requiring agency
action after this Court heard argument). The Court need
go no further.
Second, even on its own terms, the City’s change in
law is not subject to the voluntary cessation doctrine.
The voluntary cessation doctrine is “an evidentiary
presumption that the controversy reflected by the violation
of alleged rights continues to exist.” Friends of the Earth,
Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167,
213 (2000) (Scalia, J., dissenting). This presumption
that defendants may well revert to prior conduct makes
sense where defendants are private parties that control
their own affairs—and even where defendants are public
officials or governmental entities who have done nothing
more than announce they will no longer engage in a certain
practice or enforce a certain policy. But when a state or
local government goes through all of the hoops necessary
to bind itself to a new law, the presumption is that the
new law has been enacted in good faith and is intended
to be permanent. See Nat’l Archives & Records Admin.
v. Favish, 541 U.S. 157, 174 (2004) (“The presumption of
regularity supports the official acts of public officers and,
in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary, courts

 18
presume that they have properly discharged their official
duties.” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Preiser v.
Newkirk, 422 U.S. 395, 402–03 (1975).9
Accordingly, this Court has long treated a governmental
defendant’s change in law as falling beyond the reach of the
voluntary cessation doctrine. See, e.g., Galioto, 477 U.S. at
559–60 (amendment to federal law); Kremens, 431 U.S. at
126–27 (state law); Diffenderfer v. Cent. Baptist Church,
404 U.S. 412, 414–15 (1972) (per curiam) (same); United
Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council v. Mayor and Council of
Camden, 465 U.S. 208, 213–14 (1984) (municipal law); Bd.
of Pub. Util. Comm’rs v. Compania Gen. De Tabacos De
Filipinas, 249 U.S. 425, 426–27 (1919) (local law). “[A]ll
the circuits to address the issue” also have agreed that
a change in law “moots a plaintiff’s injunction request”
because governmental entities are presumed to make such
changes without any intent to revert to prior law. Fed’n
of Adver. Indus. Representatives, Inc. v. City of Chi., 326
F.3d 924, 930 (7th Cir. 2003).10

9.  Principles of comity and federalism make clear that this
presumption extends to state and local officials. Chi. United Indus.
v. City of Chi., 445 F.3d 940, 947 (7th Cir. 2006); see also Troiano
v. Supervisor of Elections, 382 F.3d 1276, 1283 (11th Cir. 2004).
10.  These principles apply with equal force to changes in
law made by formal administrative rulemaking. See, e.g., Ala.
Hosp. Ass’n v. Beasley, 702 F.2d 955, 961 (11th Cir. 1983); Mosley
v. Hairston, 920 F.2d 409, 415 (6th Cir. 1990); 13C Charles Alan
Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Edward H. Cooper, Federal Practice
and Procedure § 3533.6, at 259 (3d ed. 2008) (mootness principles
apply equally to new “legislative rules established by statute or
administrative regulation”).

 19
The two cases in which this Court has applied the
voluntary cessation doctrine to changes in law only serve
to confirm the doctrine’s inapplicability here. In Northeast
Florida Chapter of Associated General Contractors of
America v. City of Jacksonville, 508 U.S. 656 (1993), the
Court held that new legislation did not moot the case
because the new law continued to “disadvantage[ the
plaintiffs] in the same fundamental way” as the original
law the plaintiffs challenged. Id. at 662. In other words,
the new law did not fully (or even mostly) address the
plaintiffs’ alleged injuries. Id. at 662 & n.3. And in City
of Mesquite v. Aladdin’s Castle, 455 U.S. 283 (1982), the
Court held that a repeal of the challenged law did not
moot the case because the defendant city expressly told
the Court that if the case were held moot, it intended to
reenact precisely the same provision that gave rise to the
lawsuit. Id. at 289 n.11; see also id. at 296 n.* (White, J.,
concurring in part and dissenting in part); see also Hunt
v. Cromartie, 526 U.S. 541, 545 n.1 (1999) (relying on City
of Mesquite to hold that new legislation did not moot case
“[b]ecause the State’s [new] law provides that the State
will revert to the [old] districting plan upon a favorable
decision of this Court”).
Neither of the special circumstances in those cases is
present here. The City’s new regulation fully addresses
petitioners’ alleged injuries. And the City has no intention
of returning to its former regulatory scheme (even if it
could, which, as noted above, it cannot because of the state
legislation). The new rule is part of a broader reformation
of the rules governing premises permits, to which the City
is committed going forward. As then-Judge Sotomayor
has explained, a municipality under these circumstances
is entitled to “deference,” thereby mooting the plaintiffs’

 20
claims. Lamar Adver. of Penn, LLC v. Town of Orchard
Park, 356 F.3d 365, 375–77 (2d Cir. 2004).
Any other outcome would mean that a new law could
never moot a case. It is always theoretically possible for
a legislature or administrative body to revert sometime
in the future to a prior law (at least in a case, unlike this
one, where a relevant change would not be preempted).
Yet sustaining jurisdiction to decide a case simply because
a law might be passed in the future would be the essence
of issuing an advisory opinion.
II.   Even if the case were not moot, the proper course
would still be to dismiss it without reaching the
merits.
Even if this case were not moot, the intervening
changes in state and local law would still counsel for
dismissing the petition. There is no good reason for this
Court to opine on the constitutionality of restricting
the transport of handguns in ways that, according to
petitioners themselves, no jurisdiction in the country
currently does. And if the Court is interested in opining
on other issues, such as the ability to carry guns in public,
it should wait for a case that actually presents such a
question.
1. Petitioners have repeatedly emphasized that the
City’s prior restriction on transporting handguns to firing
ranges or second homes outside of municipal limits was
a “novel, one-of-a-kind regulation with no analog in any
other jurisdiction.” Cert. Reply 7 (internal quotation marks
omitted); see also Pet’rs’ Br. 28 (“petitioners are aware of
no other jurisdiction in the entire country” that prohibits
law-abiding individuals from taking their lawfully owned

 21
handguns to such places); id. at 35 (the City “stands
alone”). Now that that restriction is no more, there is no
reason for this Court to expend its resources to decide
whether the limitations it imposed were constitutional. It is
one thing to grant review in order to determine whether an
“outlier” law transgresses constitutional principles. Cert.
Reply 8. It is wholly another to decide whether limitations
that no jurisdiction imposes would be constitutional.
2. Nor would it be proper to use this case to address
the broader Second A mendment arg uments that
petitioners advance in their merits brief. After stressing
at the certiorari stage (and throughout the litigation
more generally) that all they seek is the “modest ability
to transport their licensed firearms, unloaded and locked
away separate from ammunition, to a shooting range or
second home outside city limits,” Cert. Reply 1, parts of
petitioners’ merits brief maintain in much more sweeping
terms that “the Second Amendment protects a right to
carry arms outside the home,” Pet’rs’ Br. 25; see also
id. at 22 (suggesting prior generations understood the
Second Amendment to guarantee a right “to carry loaded
firearms upon their persons as they went about their daily
lives”).
Petitioners, however, have never challenged the
regulatory regime under which the City grants licenses
to carry handguns in public. Nor have they challenged
the underlying state law distinguishing between premises
licenses and carry licenses or setting standards for their
issuance. By contrast, there have been, and will continue
to be, numerous lawsuits across the country that squarely
challenge restrictions on carrying handguns in public.
See, e.g., Pet. for Writ of Cert. 13–19, Rogers v. Grewal,
No. 18-824 (cert. pending) (collecting cases). Consequently,

 22
if and when this Court wishes to consider whether the
Second Amendment guarantees a right to carry arms in
public beyond transporting them to second homes or firing
ranges, there will be every opportunity to do so in another
case where the plaintiffs have actually sought such relief
and challenged a law that stands in their way.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court should vacate
and remand with instructions to dismiss—or at least with
instructions directing the lower courts to apply Article
III principles in the first instance to the current situation.

Jeffrey L. Fisher
O’Melveny & Myers LLP
2765 Sand Hill Road
Menlo Park, CA 94025
A nton Metlitsky
Jennifer B. Sokoler
O’Melveny & Myers LLP
Times Square Tower
7 Times Square
New York, NY 10036

Respectfully submitted,
Zachary W. Carter
Corporation Counsel
of the City of New York
100 Church Street
New York, NY 10007
(212) 356-2500
rdearing@law.nyc.gov
Richard Dearing*
Claude S. Platton
Elina Druker
Ingrid R. Gustafson
Susan Paulson

Brad N. Garcia
O’Melveny & Myers LLP
1625 Eye Street, NW
*Counsel of Record
Washington, DC 20006
Counsel for Respondents
July 22, 2019

 APPENDIX

1a
Appendix A
New York City Police Department
Notice of Adoption
NOTICE OF ADOPTION relating to transport
of handguns by premises license holders pursuant to
Chapters 5 and 16 of Title 38 of the Rules of the City of
New York.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN PURSUANT TO
THE AUTHORITY VESTED IN the Commissioner of the
New York City Police Department (“Police Department”)
by Section 400.00 of the Penal Law, Sections 435 and 1043
of the New York City Charter, and Section 10-131 of the
Administrative Code of the City of New York, and in
accordance with the requirements of Section 1043 of
the New York City Charter, that the Police Department
hereby amends Sections 5-01, 5-22 and 5-23 of Chapter 5,
and Section 16-02 of Chapter 16, of Title 38 of the Rules
of the City of New York.
This rule was first published on April 12, 2019 (the
“Proposed Rule”), and a public hearing was held on May
17, 2019.
Statement of Basis and Purpose of Final Rule
As the firearms-licensing officer for the City of
New York, the Police Commissioner has promulgated
rules governing the possession, carry, and transport
of handguns by licensees. Section 5-01 of Title 38 of the
Rules of the City of New York defines the types of available

 2a

handgun licenses in the City and generally describes the
restrictions imposed by the different types of licenses.
Section 5-01(a) defines a premises license as a restricted
handgun license issued for a specific business or
residence. Section 5-23 sets forth in greater detail the
restrictions and conditions imposed by the different types
of handgun licenses available in the City. Section 5-23(a)
governs the possession and transport of handguns by
holders of a premises license. Subdivision a provides that
any handguns listed on a premises license may not be
removed from the address specified on the license except
as provided in Chapter 5 of Title 38 of the Rules of the
City of New York. Section 5-23(a) authorizes a premises
licensee to remove a handgun from the premises listed
on the license to take it directly to and from one of
the following destinations, provided that the handgun
is transported unloaded, in a locked container, with the
ammunition carried separately:
•    An authorized small arms range/shooting club,
to maintain proficiency in the use of a handgun,
where all such authorized ranges/clubs are located
within New York City; or
•   An authorized area for hunting, provided
that the licensee requested and received an
appropriate amendment to the handgun license
from the Police Department.
Separately, Section 5-22(a)(16) authorizes a licensee
to transport the handgun to a gunsmith, with written
authorization of the Police Department’s License Division,

 3a

provided that the handgun is transported unloaded, in a
locked container. Additionally, Chapter 16 of Title 38 of
the Rules of the City of New York generally governs the
transport or delivery of weapons into or within the City.
Chapter 16 applies to circumstances described in that
chapter not otherwise addressed by the Rules, including
the transport of handguns by premises licensees.
The requirement that premises licensees keep at their
premises the handguns listed on their licenses, along with
the above two exceptions to that requirement, sought to
balance public safety against the interests of licensees
in maintaining proficiency in the use of their handguns
and in using their handguns for hunting. Two legal
developments occasioned a reexamination of the balance
struck by these rules. The first was the New York Court
of Appeals’ decision in Osterweil v. Bartlett, 21 N.Y.3d 580
(2013), which held that the New York Penal Law permits
the owner of a part-time residence in the state to apply
for a handgun license in the jurisdiction of that residence,
although the owner may be domiciled outside the state.
Prior to the decision, the statute had been interpreted to
require the applicant for a handgun permit to show that
he or she was a domiciliary of the county (or City) where
the application was filed. See, e.g., Matter of Mahoney
v. Lewis, 199 A.D.2d 734 (3d Dep’t 1993). Following the
Osterweil decision, a New York City resident who owns a
second home elsewhere in the state apparently may apply
to the licensing officer in that jurisdiction for a license
to possess a handgun at the second home. The former
rules, however, did not authorize a premises licensee to
transport a handgun listed on a New York City premises

 4a

license to another premises where the licensee resides and
is authorized to possess a handgun.
The second development was the New York State
Rifle and Pistol Association, Inc. v. City of New York
(NYSRPA) lawsuit, which challenges the former transport
restrictions for premises licensees on Second Amendment
and other constitutional grounds. One plaintiff in the case
alleges that the former rules improperly prevented him
from transporting a handgun listed on the premises license
for his New York City residence to a second home upstate.
Several plaintiffs allege that the former rules improperly
prevented them from transporting their handguns to
small arms ranges/shooting clubs outside of New York
City for purposes of firearms training or competitions.
See New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v.
City of New York, 883 F.3d 45 (2d Cir. 2018). The case is
currently pending in the United States Supreme Court.
The Osterweil decision suggests that an accommodation
of licensees who own second homes is warranted as a
matter of New York law, and the ongoing NYSRPA case
raises questions about the constitutionality of the former
transport rules. The Police Department accordingly
reviewed the rules and determined that it was possible
to modify them to ref lect a carefully considered
accommodation to the interests of licensees while also
ensuring the safe transport of handguns by licensees. In
furtherance of this determination, the Police Department
announced the Proposed Rule.

 5a

The Proposed Rule would have allowed a premises
licensee to transport the handgun(s) listed on her/his
premises license directly to and from any of the following
locations, in addition to the locations authorized under
the former version of section 5-23(a), provided that the
handgun was transported unloaded, in a locked container,
with the ammunition carried separately:
•  Another residence or place of business where
the licensee was authorized to have and possess a
handgun;
•  A small arms range/shooting club authorized by
law to operate as such, whether located within or
outside New York City; or
•  A shooting competition at which the licensee was
authorized to possess the handgun consistent with
the law applicable at the place of the competition.
In addition to clarifying and otherwise adopting the
transport authorizations found in the Proposed Rule, the
Final Rule authorizes a premises licensee to transport the
handgun(s) listed on her/his license as follows:
•  When purchasing a handgun in accordance
with 38 RCNY § 5-25, directly from the place of
purchase to the address specified on the license,
provided that the handgun is transported unloaded,
in a locked container, with the ammunition carried
separately;

 6a

•  Directly to or from the offices of the License
Division, or the licensee’s local police precinct,
as authorized by applicable rules, provided that
the handgun is transported unloaded, in a locked
container, without ammunition; or
•  Directly to or from a dealer in firearms
w ith w r itten author ization of the License
Division, provided that the handgun is transported
unloaded, in a locked container. This authorization
supplements the existing authorization of transport
to a gunsmith.
The additional authorizations added in the Final Rule
were included to codify existing practice in the interest of
clarity. Toward that end, the Police Department further
confirms that the authorization in 38 RCNY § 5-23(a)
(3)(i) to transport a handgun to another residence or
place of business of the licensee authorizes the licensee
to transport a firearm when moving to a new premises
in accordance with 38 RCNY § 5-27 or 5-29. Moreover,
references in Chapter 5 of Title 38 of the Rules of the
City of New York to an “authorized small arms
range/shooting club,” as applied to premises licenses,
are intended to include any lawful small arms range,
shooting club, or shooting competition, whether within or
outside New York City.
The Final Rule continues to recognize the importance
of public safety. It requires that (1) a handgun possessed
pursuant to a premises license be kept at the premises
when not being transported directly to or from, or
possessed at, an authorized location; (2) any such

 7a

handgun be transported unloaded, in a locked container,
with the ammunition carried separately (or, in certain
cases, without ammunition); and (3) transport of any
such handgun within New York City be continuous and
uninterrupted. These requirements ensure that a person
who has not obtained a carry license will continue to be
unauthorized by a premises license to transport a firearm
in operable condition in public.
New material is underlined.
[Deleted material is in brackets.]
Section 1. Subdivision (a) of Section 5-01 of Chapter 5
of Title 38 of the Rules of the City of New York is amended
to read as follows:
§ 5-01 Types of Handgun Licenses.
*

*

*

(a) Premises License – Residence or Business.
This is a restricted handgun license, issued for
a specific business or residence location. The
handgun shall be safeguarded at the specific
address indicated on the license, except when
the licensee transports or possesses such
handgun consistent with these Rules. [This
license permits the transporting of an unloaded
handgun directly to and from an authorized
small arms range/shooting club, secured
unloaded in a locked container. Ammunition
shall be carried separately.]

 8a

§ 2. Subdivision (a) of Section 5-23 of Chapter 5 of
Title 38 of the Rules of the City of New York is amended
to read as follows:
§ 5-23 Types of Handgun Licenses.
(a) Premises License – Residence or Business.
This is a restricted handgun license, issued
for the protection of a business or residence
premises.
(1) The handguns listed on this license
may not be removed from the address
specified on the license except as
otherwise provided in this chapter.
(2) The possession of the handgun
[for protection] is restricted to the
inside of the premises which address
is specified on the license or to any
other location to which the licensee is
authorized to transport such handgun
in accordance with these Rules.
(3) [To maintain proficiency in the use
of the handgun, the] The licensee may
transport the handgun(s) listed on
her/his [handgun(s) directly to and
from an authorized small arms range/
shooting club] license, unloaded, in a
locked container, the ammunition to
be carried separately, directly to and
from the following locations:

 9a

(i) Another residence, or place of
business, of the licensee where
the licensee is authorized to
possess such handgun. Such
residence or place of business
may be within or outside New
York City.
(ii) A lawful small arms range/
shooting club or lawful shooting
competition. Such range, club,
or competition may be within or
outside New York City.
(4) A licensee may transport her/his
handgun(s) directly to and from an
authorized area designated by the
New York State Fish and Wildlife Law
and in compliance with all pertinent
hunting regulations, unloaded, in a
locked container, the ammunition to be
carried separately, after the licensee
has requested and received a “Police
Department – City of New York
Hunting Authorization” Amendment
attached to her/his license.
(5) A licensee may transport her/
his handgun(s), unloaded, in a locked
container, without ammunition, to
or from the offices of the License
Division, or the licensee’s local police
precinct, as authorized by these Rules.

 10a

(6) When purchasing a handgun in
accordance with 38 RCNY § 5-25, a
licensee may transport the handgun,
unloaded, in a locked container, the
ammunition to be carried separately,
directly from the place of purchase
to the address specified on the license.
(7) Transport within New York City
pursuant to Paragraph (3), (4), (5),
or (6) of this subdivision shall be
continuous and uninterrupted.
§ 3. Paragraph (16) of subdivision (a) of Section 5-22
of Chapter 5 of Title 38 of the Rules of the City of New
York is amended to read as follows:
(16) Except for licensees with unrestricted Carry
Business licenses or Special Carry Business Licenses,
a licensee wishing to transport her/his handgun to a
gunsmith or a dealer in firearms shall request permission
in writing from the Division Head, License Division.
Authorization shall be provided in writing. The
licensee shall carry this authorization with her/him when
transporting the handgun to the gunsmith or the dealer
in firearms, and shall transport the handgun directly to
and from the gunsmith or the dealer in firearms. The
handgun shall be secured unloaded in a locked container
during transport.
§ 4. Section 16-02 of Chapter 16 of Title 38 of the
Rules of the City of New York is amended by adding a
new Subdivision (c) to read as follows:

 11a

§ 16-02 Applicability.
This chapter shall apply to all persons who transport or
deliver one or more weapons into or within any location
in the City of New York, except that it shall not apply to:
*

*

*

(c) transport pursuant to 38 RCNY § 5-23(a)(3), (4), (5), or (6).

 12a
Appendix B
LAWS OF NEW YORK, 2019
CHAPTER 104
AN ACT to amend the penal law, in relation to the
transport of pistols or revolvers by licensees
Became a law July 16, 2019, with the approval of the
Governor. Passed by a majority vote, three-fifths being
present.
The People of the State of New York, represented
in Senate and Assembly, do enact as follows:
Section 1. Subdivision 6 of section 400.00 of the penal
law, as amended by chapter 318 of the laws of 2002, is
amended to read as follows:
6. License: validity. Any license issued pursuant to this
section shall be valid notwithstanding the provisions of any
local law or ordinance. No license shall be transferable to
any other person or premises. A license to carry or possess
a pistol or revolver, not otherwise limited as to place or time
of possession, shall be effective throughout the state, except
that the same shall not be valid within the city of New York
unless a special permit granting validity is issued by the
police commissioner of that city. Such license to carry or
possess shall be valid within the city of New York in the
absence of a permit issued by the police commissioner of
EXPLANATION--Matter in italics is new; matter in
brackets [‑] is old law to be omitted.

 13a

that city, provided that (a) the firearms covered by such
license have been purchased from a licensed dealer within
the city of New York and are being transported out of
said city forthwith and immediately from said dealer by
the licensee in a locked container during a continuous
and uninterrupted trip; or provided that (b) the firearms
covered by such license are being transported by the
licensee in a locked container and the trip through the city
of New York is continuous and uninterrupted; or provided
that (c) the firearms covered by such license are carried by
armored car security guards transporting money or other
valuables, in, to, or from motor vehicles commonly known
as armored cars, during the course of their employment;
or provided that (d) the licensee is a retired police officer as
police officer is defined pursuant to subdivision thirty-four
of section 1.20 of the criminal procedure law or a retired
federal law enforcement officer, as defined in section
2.15 of the criminal procedure law, who has been issued
a license by an authorized licensing officer as defined in
subdivision ten of section 265.00 of this chapter; provided,
further, however, that if such license was not issued in
the city of New York it must be marked “Retired Police
Officer” or “Retired Federal Law Enforcement Officer”,
as the case may be, and, in the case of a retired officer the
license shall be deemed to permit only police or federal law
enforcement regulations weapons; or provided that (e) the
licensee is a peace officer described in subdivision four of
section 2.10 of the criminal procedure law and the license,
if issued by other than the city of New York, is marked
“New York State Tax Department Peace Officer” and in
such case the exemption shall apply only to the firearm
issued to such licensee by the department of taxation and

 14a

finance. A license as gunsmith or dealer in firearms shall
not be valid outside the city or county, as the case may
be, where issued. Notwithstanding any inconsistent
provision of state or local law or rule or regulation, the
premises limitation set forth in any license to have and
possess a pistol or revolver in the licensee’s dwelling
or place of business pursuant to paragraph (a) or (b)
of subdivision two of this section shall not prevent
the transport of such pistol or revolver directly to or
from (i) another dwelling or place of business of the
licensee where the licensee is authorized to have and
possess such pistol or revolver, (ii) an indoor or outdoor
shooting range that is authorized by law to operate as
such, (iii) a shooting competition at which the licensee
may possess such pistol or revolver consistent with
the provisions of subdivision a of section 265.20 of this
chapter or consistent with the law applicable at the
place of such competition, or (iv) any other location
where the licensee is lawfully authorized to have and
possess such pistol or revolver; provided however, that
during such transport to or from a location specified
in clauses (i) through (iv) of this paragraph, the pistol
or revolver shall be unloaded and carried in a locked
container, and the ammunition therefor shall be carried
separately; provided further, however, that a license to
have and possess a pistol or revolver in the licensee’s
dwelling or place of business pursuant to paragraph (a)
or (b) of subdivision two of this section that is issued by
a licensing officer other than the police commissioner
of the city of New York shall not authorize transport
of a pistol or revolver into the city of New York in the
absence of written authorization to do so by the police

 15a

commissioner of that city. The term “locked container”
shall not include the glove compartment or console of
a vehicle.
§ 2. Severability. If any clause, sentence, paragraph,
section, or part of this act shall be adjudged by any court of
competent jurisdiction to be invalid and after exhaustion
of all further judicial review, the judgment shall not
affect, impair or invalidate the remainder thereof, but
shall be confined in its operation to the clause, sentence,
paragraph, section, or part of this act directly involved
in the controversy in which the judgment shall have been
rendered.
§ 3. This act shall take effect immediately.
The Legislature of the STATE OF NEW YORK ss:
Pursuant to the authority vested in us by section 70-b
of the Public Officers Law, we hereby jointly certify that
this slip copy of this session law was printed under our
direction and, in accordance with such section, is entitled
to be read into evidence.
ANDREA STEWARTCOUSINS
Temporary President
of the Senate

CARL E. HEASTIE
Speaker of the Assembly

 16a

NEW YORK STATE ASSEMBLY
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF LEGISLATION
submitted in accordance with
Assembly Rule III, Sec 1(f)
BILL NUMBER: A7752 REVISED 6/18/2019
SPONSOR: Dinowitz
TITLE OF BILL: An act to amend the penal law, in
relation to the transport of pistols or revolvers by licensees
PURPOSE: The purpose of this bill is to clarify when a
pistol or revolver may be legally transported by a license
holder, as well as set a statewide standard for the safe
transportation of firearms.
SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS:
Section one of this bill allows for a license holder to
transport their pistol or revolver from one location where
they may legally possess such weapon directly to another
location where they may legally possess such weapon,
including another dwelling or place of business where they
have a license, an indoor or outdoor shooting range, or a
shooting competition. During transport for the holder of
a license with a premises limitation, the pistol or revolver
must be kept in a locked container and separate from the
ammunition. Individuals who do not have a special permit
issued by the Commissioner of the New York City Police
would still be required to receive written authorization from
the New York City Police Commissioner if they wish to
transport a firearm to a destination in the City of New York.

 17a

Section two of this bill is a severability clause.
Section three is the effective date.
JUSTIFICATION:
Premise licenses for firearms in New York State allow a
license holder to possess a firearm in a specific location,
either their home or place of work, the address of which is
specified on the license. Recognizing that premise license
holders may have a legitimate reason to transport their
firearms to another location, either another premise where
they have a license to possess a firearm, a shooting range
to practice their marksmanship, or a shooting competition,
this bill seeks to clarify the ability of premise license
holders to transport their firearms to and from locations
where they may legally possess such firearm. In order to
ensure that any transportation of firearms that occurs
is done safely and responsibly, this bill requires that,
during transport, such firearms must be kept in a locked
container separate from the ammunition. As provided
for under existing law, properly licenses individuals
would not be prohibited from transporting a pistol or
revolver through the City of New York in a continuous
and uninterrupted manner and would not be required to
obtain specific written authorization to do so.
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:
New Bill.

 18a

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
None to the State.
EFFECTIVE DATE:
This act shall take effect immediately.