The U.S. Supreme Court vacated a Manhattan federal appellate court and ordered it to reevaluate its decision that upheld part of New York’s 2022 controversial concealed carry law. The law required an applicant to show “good moral character” to obtain a concealed carry permit.
New York's law requires not just a demonstration of “good moral character” but also that an applicant provide character references, passwords to social media accounts, list household members, pass a safety course, and submit to an interview with law enforcement.
“With the High Court making clear the Second Circuit got it wrong and by remanding the case back to the lower court, the High Court is forcing New York’s politicians to eat a huge plate of humble pie. We look forward to continuing the fight for New Yorkers’ right to carry—without government pre-requisites,” said Gun Owners of America Senior Vice President Erich Pratt.
New York’s effort to restrict the Second Amendment rights of its citizens garners attention across the nation as other anti-Second Amendment-minded states look to enact restrictions of their own. The Supreme Court ruling on the NY case sets the stage for laws both for and against law-abiding gun owners across the nation.
In this recent case, gun owners challenged NY’s concealed carry law restrictions arguing they violated the Second Amendment and were in defiance of the Supreme Court's decision issued two years ago.
A three-judge panel of the 2nd Circuit upheld the good-moral-character requirement. The Supreme Court vacated their decision and told them to take another look.
"When the Supreme Court tells them to review a decision, it’s a pretty good indication it has concerns with the decision made," Aaron Dorr of the New York State Firearms Association said. "It's certainly an instruction that we are happy to hear."
Two years ago, the US Supreme Court struck down NY’s concealed carry permit law that had been in effect since 1913. That existing law required law-abiding gun owners to demonstrate “proper cause” if they wanted an unrestricted concealed carry permit. Simply wanting to freely exercise your inalienable right to self-defense, in or outside of your home, as guaranteed in the Second Amendment was not enough.
NY required its citizens to show a “need” for self-defense. New Yorkers were somehow expected to know they would need to defend themselves in advance, declare that need to some local deciding official, and then hope that local official agreed. Otherwise, you would get a permit that only allowed you to carry outside your home for hunting and target shooting.
The US Supreme Court struck down that part of the law. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in the court’s opinion, “We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need.”
Imagine for a moment that if you wanted to organize a protest or a rally in support of a cause and this same logic New York put forward for concealed carry permits was applied to First Amendment rights.
A local deciding official could require you to show that there was a ‘need’ for you to exercise your First Amendment right to speech and assembly. Imagine that the local official doesn't agree with the premise of your rally. They could, as they did in NY limit carry permits to hunting and target shooting, either deny your permit for a rally or so severely limit where and when you could hold your rally as to make it ineffective or even impossible.
NY’s new concealed carry law continues to be challenged in multiple courts on almost every one of the impediments it puts in front of New Yorkers to exercise their Second Amendment rights. The Second Amendment has held up pretty well so far in Supreme Court decisions, but NY continues to try and curtail self-defense rights.