On Thursday, a federal judge temporarily blocked key provisions of New York gun law restricting who can carry a handgun in public, where handguns can be carried and where firearms can be purchased. The judge determined that components of the law are unconstitutional.
Judge Glenn Suddbaby of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York said in the ruling that the state “further entrenched itself as a shall-not-issue jurisdiction” and “further reduced a first-class constitutional right to bear arms in public for self defense…into a mere request.”
In the ruling, Suddbaby explained that certain parts of the law went too far, such as a requirement for gun license applicants to turn over information about their social media accounts as part of a “character and conduct” screening. Other components of the law, such as a ban on guns in schools, government buildings and places of worship, will remain in place, according to the Associated Press.
Under the law, permit renewal or recertification would be required every three years. And, “sensitive locations” like Times Square, parks and theaters will be “gun-free zones.”
The law, which went into effect Sept. 1, took effect after the United States Supreme Court struck down New York’s previous law regarding handgun permits (via AP):
The law increased training requirements for applicants and requires them to turn over more private information, including a list of everyone living in their home. Suddaby said the law’s requirement that a license applicant be of “good moral character” is unconstitutional, as currently written.
Gov. Kathy Hochul and the state Legislature approved the law this summer shortly after the high court struck down a state law that required people to demonstrate an unusual threat to their safety to qualify for a license to carry a handgun outside their homes.
The lawsuit on Thursday was brought forward by six members of Gun Owners of America (GOA) in New York who argued that the law is unconstitutional. One plaintiff said in a federal complaint that he intends to apply for a permit but does not want to share his social media and other private information in the process.
The state has three business days to seek emergency relief before a federal appeals court.
New York GOP Rep. Elise Stefanik told the New York Post in a statement that “We are one step closer to ending Corrupt Kathy Hochul’s assault on our fundamental Second Amendment rights and restoring the rights of New Yorkers.”
“Her [Hochul’s] direct attack on our Upstate Values has wrongfully declared historical reenactors and lawful gun owners in the Adirondack Park as felons and ended gun show fundraisers for first responders in my district. This must come to an end now,” Stefanik added.
Townhall covered In June how the Supreme Court handed down its opinion in the case New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen. The case determined that the Second Amendment protects the right of American citizens to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home. The law at the center of the case required individuals to show “proper cause” before they can be licensed to carry.
The ruling came down 6-3 with Justice Clarence Thomas penning the majority opinion. As Spencer noted, Thomas wrote that the Second Amendment should not be treated differently than other rights outlined in the Bill of Rights.
The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self defense is not “a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.” We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need. That is not how the First Amendment works when it comes to unpopular speech or the free exercise of religion. It is not how the Sixth Amendment works when it comes to a defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him. And it is not how the Second Amendment works when it comes to public carry for selfdefense. New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment in that it prevents law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.