The "mere inconvenience" exception to the Second Amendment

Gun litigation in the Second Circuit is now in full swing. Over the last few weeks, the Court has published several rulings largely affirming New York's gun control laws. In this case, the Court rules that provisions of New York's Concealed Carry Improvement Act do not violate the Second Amendment. These provisions include rules that require background checks on people who want to buy ammunition, among other things.

The case is New York State Firearms Association v. James, issued on October 15. Under the Second Amendment caselaw that has developed ever since the Supreme Court held in 2008, the Heller ruling, that the Second Amendment provides for the right of individual gun ownership, not every gun regulation will be stricken as unconstitutional, and no constitutional provision provides for absolute rights without an exceptions.

With that in mind, the Second Circuit (Bianco, Park and Nardini) notes as follows:

A law regulating the means of acquiring firearms and ammunition does not meaningfully constrain the right to possess arms unless it “is so restrictive that it threatens a citizen’s right to acquire firearms [and ammunition].” Mere inconveniences do not constitute such a threat. Thus, we have made clear that “gun buyers have no right to have a gun store in a particular location, nor a right to travel no more than short distances to the most convenient gun store that provides what they  deem  a  satisfactory  retail experience.” In other words, “the Second Amendment does not elevate convenience and preference over all other considerations, nor does it guarantee a certain type of retail experience.”

Let's call this the "mere inconvenience" exception to the Second Amendment. The Court adds, "consequences that are part and parcel of ordinary regulatory measures—such as reasonable processing times and the hassle of filling out paperwork—generally will not meaningfully impair one’s ability to acquire arms. Indeed, because the Supreme Court has recognized that 'laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms' are 'presumptively lawful regulatory measures,' the modest administrative burdens that naturally follow will not ordinarily be sufficient to overcome that presumption." We can call that the "hassle" exception to the Second Amendment.

With constitutional standards like this, you can see where this case is going. The mandatory background check on people who want to buy ammunition, such as bullets, is legal. So is the small fee to process such background checks. A brief delay in acquiring the gun is not unconstitutional, and neither is the  $2.50 fee to pay for background check.  

Note the three judges on this case were all appointed by the current President. Judge Bianco writes the majority opinion, as he did in the other recent Second Amendment cases. A coincidence, to be sure, as the judges are chosen at random. Many judges are known for their jurisprudence in one area. At this rate, Judge Bianco is now the Second Amendment authority at the Court of Appeals.