In an opinion piece on Saturday, The NY Post Editorial Board voiced concern about the outcome of a case currently before the Supreme Court challenging the state’s restrictive concealed-carry standard.
“The last thing New York needs is for every Tom, Dick and Harriet on the street to be carrying,” lamented the Board in the column.
The high court is expected to issue its ruling in the coming weeks and the Board is worried a majority decision will nix New York’s “proper cause” requirement that forces gun owners to provide to the state a specific reason on why they need to bear arms in public.
Under current law, a judge or CLEO can arbitrarily deny a law-abiding citizen a permit on the grounds that their “proper cause” for bearing arms isn’t satisfactory.
While the gun community is nearly unanimous in its belief that may-issue schemes like New York’s are unconstitutional, several justices on the bench, apparently, are also on board.
“You don’t have to say, when you’re looking for a permit to speak on a street corner or whatever, that, you know, your speech is particularly important,” observed Chief Justice John Roberts during the oral arguments last Fall.
“So why do you have to show — in this case, convince somebody — that you’re entitled to exercise your Second Amendment right?” Roberts asked.
Trump-appointee Justice Brett Kavanaugh also poked holes in the legal rationale behind the law.
“Why isn’t it good enough to say I live in a violent area, and I want to be able to defend myself? With any constitutional right, if it’s up to the discretion of an individual officer, that seems inconsistent with an objective constitutional right,” he said.
The Post’s Editorial Board sees the writing on the wall, hence their concern.
“The Supremes can — must — let New York protect itself, whether by simply upholding New York’s law, or, if they find it unconstitutionally broad (as seems likely based on their questioning during the case), ordering modest tweaks. One possibility: Grant the state the right to limit public spaces where guns are allowed,” it writes.
SEE ALSO: Remember That Time When Biden Openly Embraced the Firearm Industry: ‘You guys are doing a lot of good things… I mean it.’
“But forcing New York to let anyone at all carry a firearm anywhere they want, no questions asked, is a recipe for disaster,” the Board concluded.
The Board is wrong.
First off, even if the may-issue system is declared unconstitutional, prohibited persons — felons, minors, domestic abusers, drug addicts, fugitives from justice, mental defectives — will still be banned from possessing firearms under federal law.
Second, permissive concealed-carry standards, like shall-issue and constitutional carry, are not a recipe for “disaster.” Half the country has adopted constitutional carry, the most permissive standard there is as it allows citizens to carry concealed without a government-issued permit. Not one state has descended into chaos as a result.
In fact, one recent study looking at crime data in 13 states four years prior to the enactment of constitutional carry and six years after it rolled found no statistically significant change in violent crime, police killings, and firearm homicide — and a drop in the murder rate.
As for the point about guns everywhere in the city, sadly, that is already the case as it relates to the most violent and dangerous criminals out there, as Justice Samuel Alito alluded to in his questioning during the oral arguments.
“How many illegal guns were seized by the New York Police Department last year? All these people with illegal guns, they’re on the subway, they’re walking around the streets,” Justice Alito said. “But the ordinary, hard-working, law-abiding people I mentioned, no, they can’t be armed?”
No, they can’t. Not without the state’s permission. But to the chagrin of The NY Post Editorial Board, one can expect that to change in the very near future.
The 2A right to bear arms has been declared by the supreme court to be “an individual right.” Thank you SCOTUS!
The standard of review for the violation of that right is “undue burden.”
That means that laws that place an undue burden on the exercise of our constitutional individual to bear arms must be struck down.
Here’s my concern: The right to abortion has also been decided to be “an individual right.” Same as the right to bear arms.
If this current conservative court does away with that “individual right” to abortion they will set a precedent that will inevitably result in the doing away with the “individual right” to bear arms by a more liberal court in the future.
I think us 2A people have to be careful where we step… what they can do to the right to abortion they can do to the right to bear arms.
Oh really ? What amendment is abortion ?
“But forcing New York to let anyone at all carry a firearm anywhere they want, no questions asked, is a recipe for disaster,” the Board concluded.” …. DUH , it’s not ANYWHERE they WANT . It’s in their home , or business , or going TO those locations, or to an ATM , or …. it’s Noy EVERYWHERE/anywhere . And it’s not no questions asked , GOOD grief , exaggerate much ???
Only “Gun Law” required is 2A.
Amen. Nothing further need be said and no further “gun control” needed.
Amen. 2A was intended by our founding fathers to be the only firearm regulation (ie “gun-control”) on the books – exactly why it was so short and to the point. Everything implemented since is in direct violation of 2A. Period.
From what little I have seen, the writer’s hysterics met with a lot of flack in the comments, comments recognizing that the only people disarmed by the shall issue regime were not criminals to begin with, and that criminals were disobeying the law anyway. NYers should be able to protect themselves was the primary theme.
NY is a may-issue regime. As a resident, I’d even welcome a shall-issue system at this point.