A New York law that required “proper cause” for gun owners to obtain concealed carry licenses was struck down by the Supreme Court, dealing a major blow to gun control proponents and marking the court’s most significant Second Amendment case in almost a decade. Forbidding “law-abiding persons with ordinary self-defense needs” from exercising their Second Amendment right to bear guns violates the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court concluded in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen by a vote of 6-3. State gun owners challenged the constitutionality of a law requiring a permit to possess a firearm in New York, argumentation that the provision violated the right given by the Second Amendment to both keep and bear arms because licenses are frequently denied, and the decisions are left to the discretion of individual licensing officers. The court concluded that the freedom to “bear arms” in the Second Amendment encompasses “carrying handguns publicly for self-defense,” contrary to New York’s claim that the legislation is consistent with historical precedents that limit how firearms can be carried in public areas.
In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court shot down a petition to temporarily halt concealed carry regulations nationwide. The Supreme Court decided to let a New York gun legislation that restricts concealed carry continues to apply while challenges to the law play out in the courts. Gun violence is not inevitable in the United States, but easy access to firearms significantly contributes to the problem. While gun violence is a global problem, it has recently reached epidemic proportions in the United States; even though no other country has anywhere like the number of gun deaths in the United States or the number of firearms that freely move inside our borders, stopping this national menace does not appear to be a top priority. Appropriate background checks, red flag regulations, and the banning of assault rifles are essential components in halting gun violence, and I believe that these measures alone will be capable of preventing such horrible atrocities from happening; hence, this essay will examine the court issues and alternative options the State can have to address gun violence.
Facts of the case
This case involves Robert Nash, the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, and Brandon Koch as petitioners and appellants in the District Court and the Court of Appeals. The defendants, in this case, are New York State Police Superintendent Keith M. Corlett, New York Supreme Court Justice Richard J. McNally, and the Third Judicial District of New York.
Robert Nash is a petitioner in the case New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Corlett, who wants to get a handgun carry license to protect himself in public. Since the law requires a justifiable reason to grant his request, he explained why he should be given the permit: the recent rise in robberies in his area, over which he would have complete control thanks to his completion of an advanced course in firearm safety. McNally, the licensing officer, denied Nash’s application on the grounds that he had not demonstrated a legal basis for approving his application to carry a handgun openly for self-defense grounds. McNally argued that Nash had not shown an exceptional need that distinguished him from the wider population.
Brendan Koch is another petitioner whose background has been brought into the case. Brendan Koch, like Robert Nash, applied for a permit to carry a concealed weapon for protection. Petitioner Koch provided as justification for his application his extensive background with firearms and his successful completion of numerous safety training courses. McNally, the licensing officer, declined Koch’s request because he did not give “clear valid cause” for carrying a pistol in public for self-defense and because Koch did not demonstrate a “particular desire for self-defense” that set him separate from the general’s entire population. For this reason, McNally ruled that the two petitioners were not eligible to get a license to carry a firearm in public under the failure to prove a proper cause provision.
The New York State Rifle and Pistol Association is a statewide gun rights advocacy group, and as such, they are the official petitioner in this case. Many locals would carry firearms for self-defense if allowed, but the New York State requirement of “probable cause” prevents this. The State of New York has instituted a law making it illegal for citizens to have a firearm without the proper documentation. It is unlawful to carry a gun in public without first obtaining a license to do so under New York Penal Code 400.00, and it is also illegal to maintain a firearm in one’s house without first obtaining a license to do so under that same legislation. A licensing officer, typically a law enforcement official or a judge, is the only person authorized to issue the license.
No license may be renewed or issued following the New York Criminal Law unless the licensing officer finds, among other considerations, that the applicant is of good moral character, has no history of mental illness or criminal activity, and that there is no worthy cause for the license to be denied. Although licensed concealed carry of handguns is legal in New York, The licensing process in this State is quite challenging for the typical law-abiding citizen. A concealed carry license may be denied to those who work in certain professions, such as state court judges, at the discretion of the licensing officer. A permit to carry a concealed firearm in a public location beside a place of employment should always be provided only in cases where the applicant can demonstrate a compelling need to do so. As a result, open carry of weapons is prohibited in this State, and applicants who wish to do so but do not fall into the employment as mentioned above categories must demonstrate good reason.
For a while, New York law has not entirely resolved the generally accepted meaning of reasonable cause. The courts have developed a substantial body of law to help licensing officials consistently apply the proper cause provision. Most courts have ruled that anyone seeking a license to carry a weapon in public must demonstrate a need for authorization unique from the general population. The court rules that an individual does not have a legitimate cause to get a concealed firearm permit to protect himself, his family, or his property.
Procedural History
This case is before the Supreme Court because the petitioners felt the need to challenge the constitutionality of New York State’s restriction on having weapons outside of a home without a remarkable demonstration of a valid reason. The petitioners did this under the guise of the Second Amendment to the Constitution.
Issues in the case
For the petitioners in the case New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Corlett, the central issue is whether it violates the Second Amendment for the State of New York to outlaw the carrying of handguns by otherwise law-abiding citizens for purposes of self-defense in public places. Yet, the respondents, in this case, raise the question of whether or not New York’s requirement that people who seek to carry a concealed firearm in public have an actual and explicit necessity to do so violates the Second Amendment.
The Supreme Court’s rulings in McDonald and Heller make it clear that the Second Amendment was written to protect citizens’ rights to own and carry concealed firearms for self-defense. This suggests that the handgun’s primary function is to prevent the bearer from ever having to use it for self-defense. Logic dictates that the petition should be allowed because of the right protected by the Second Amendment and the direction provided by a fair reading of the McDonald and Heller cases. The State has restricted the ability of most law-abiding citizens to carry firearms in public and has instead reserved the right to self-defense for a select few. For example, the State may make it difficult to obtain a license to carry a firearm in public by requiring proof of a “special need” or “desire” that sets the applicant apart from the general population.
The lower courts seek guidance on the problem brought on by the debate over whether or not it is constitutional to forbid generally law-abiding persons from openly carrying firearms. The District of Columbia statute and the Seventh Circuit rejected the same prohibitions upheld by the First, Second, Third, and Fourth Circuits. Many law-abiding persons are subjected to a shifting patchwork of restrictions on a constitutional right that many judges, legislators, and state officials deem crucial. Hence, the court should grant certiorari to resolve the clear circuit divide and restore the right to bear and keep weapons for self-defense to all average law-abiding persons as guaranteed by the Second Amendment.
Whether the Second Amendment exhausts every reasonable cause that average law-abiding persons needed to possess or bear handguns outside of their houses requires a review to provide consensus among Courts of Appeal. New York Penal Code 400.00 is an example of a subjective issue handgun licensing regime that violates the Second Amendment because it places state-created and emotional conditions on exercising a fundamental right. Amici States have highlighted this concern in light of two arguments for judicial review. The first is that the State’s prior experience with objective-issue regimes and the results of experiments and observations suggest that subjective-issue regimes damage public safety even when intended to improve it.
In general, the litigated problems necessitate elucidation of the justification for the average law-abiding citizen to be granted a concealed carry permit. The petitioners believe the courts have erred in their interpretation of the Second Amendment statutes by forbidding or restricting individuals from specifically seeking to permit licenses to carry pistols in public for self-defense without showing a sufficient cause. Even if they can handle the firearm safely and want to protect themselves from threats, the licensing officer does not consider that Robert Nash’s or Brendan Koch’s circumstances warrant granting them a license to carry a firearm in public.
Opinion
Petitioners Argument
The petitioners here contended that the court should accept their petition for several reasons. Secondly, they asked the court to hear an appeal and admitted that there is a circuit divide over whether or not the Second Amendment guarantees the right to carry a weapon in public. The plaintiffs asked the court to reconsider New York’s regime of a sufficient cause because it allegedly violates the Second Amendment and because lower courts erred in their interpretation of the law, making it impossible for many people to carry handguns in public without a valid justification. They argue that the express right to bear and keep a forearm is not limited to a person’s private property because of the Second Amendment’s design, test, and purpose. To wrap up their case, they say that the topic they’ve posed is crucial and that the fact that individuals’ Second Amendment rights to self-defense are limited to the home is deeply troubling. Petitioners say the State is determined to restrict citizens’ Second Amendment-guaranteed freedom to transport firearms outside their homes.
Respondents Argument
The respondents in the case argued that the petitioners’ claimed split in authority was illusory and went on to claim that the petitioners were incorrect in claiming that lower courts were open but instead acknowledged disagreement over the applicability of laws that forbade the average law-abiding American from carrying a firearm for self-defense in public. The replies continued by arguing that there needs to be a divide in the authorities over the legitimacy of the issue they require examination of, which makes the case put forth by the petitioners a weak vehicle for examining their constitutional concerns. They claimed that the court should reject the review and noted that, similarly to other appellate courts, the Second Circuit’s finding that New York’s good cause applied in licensing strategies is supported by centuries’ worth of policies and storied customs governing open handgun having to carry in public should be upheld. The New York legislation, the court tentatively presumed, increases the vital interests that the State has in safeguarding its population from the mayhem caused by firearms.
My Opinion
I believe the Second Amendment protects people’s ability to have firearms in public places. According to the ruling in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Corlett, an applicant for a concealed carry license (which would allow him to carry a firearm outside of his home but not within particular employment or area of possession) must demonstrate good cause before the court will approve their request. This is because a concealed carry license must be granted when legal grounds are established. It is challenging for a citizen to obtain a carry license if they do not meet one of the following criteria: they are not a law enforcement officer, retired police officer, active-duty member of the military service, or former member of the military service, and they are not famous or have connections to the mayor. This makes it extremely unlikely that the individual will be granted a carry license. Anyone living in New York State interested in obtaining a firearms license or a concealed carry permit should be afforded the same legal protections as those living in any other 42 states. The courts must reassess the precedents they have set as quickly as possible, and the moment has come to do so.
The defendant in this case, Robert Nash, has applied for a permit to carry a firearm for self-defense, as stated in the Writ of Certiorari. He tried to get a license to carry a gun in public because there had been a spate of robberies in his area, but he was turned down because he hadn’t shown a good reason to do so. He had sought permission to carry a firearm openly. He mentioned a spate of recent robberies in the area. Brendan Koch, the other petitioner, asked for a concealed carry license to protect himself. In his application, he highlighted that he had taken courses on weapons safety training and had great expertise in operating and handling firearms responsibly. Unfortunately, he was denied a license because the officer believed he had not provided sufficient justification. New York’s stringent requirements for a concealed carry permit are unreasonable.
My opinion is grounded upon the pleadings of Koch and Nash and the Writ of Certiorari filed in the case, which show that many residents have voiced a desire to get carry licenses but that the State has been unwilling to grant them. This is crystal apparent and is the cornerstone of my defense. The State has several overarching concerns with license applications. An application cannot be summarily denied because the applicant needs to provide sufficient evidence supporting their need for a handgun. This practice should be avoided because it gives state officials too much discretion over who is granted a license and inhibits and impede Citizens’ ability to exercise their freedom to keep and bear guns under the Second Amendment.
New York has tightened up on the concealed carry act; however, legal precedence conflicts with these changes. In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court found that the District of Columbia’s ban on handgun registration and its restriction on the number of firearms allowed people to remain in their homes are unconstitutional. They were conflicted with the law and the Constitution. However, the verdict clarified that possessing weapons, or “retaining arms,” was different from “bearing arms,” which meant carrying weapons to use in a violent conflict. The Supreme Court’s ruling in McDonald v. Chicago held that the immunities and privileges sections of the Fourteenth Amendment and the due process clauses extend the Second Amendment’s protection of the right of the people in each State to keep and bear arms. Both of these provisions are found in the Fourteenth Amendment, which played a role in the final ruling. That’s why it’s impossible for New York to ignore both this decision and the one in Heller.
New Yorkers would be better off and safer if they were allowed to have licenses to carry handguns for protection against crime and personal safety. The rising incidence of crime across the State has led to this conclusion. The ability to defend oneself with deadly force in the event of an assault can mean the difference between surviving the incident and becoming just another statistic in a city’s database. The right of law-abiding citizens to carry concealed guns for self- and family defense is recognized and protected by this provision of the Second Amendment. To further the underlying values of the Constitution, it is essential to use one’s explicitly stated rights under the Constitution.
The Supreme Court of Louisiana upheld the validity of the Second Amendment provision in State v. Chandler, using the same reasoning as the Supreme Courts of Alabama and Georgia. Although open carry puts men on equal footing with the right to carry a firearm, the court did not strike down the hidden carry prohibition in this case because it violated any man’s right to do so. Therefore, the Constitution of the United States guarantees this freedom to all citizens. The right to bear arms, as provided by the Second Amendment and many state analogs, gives citizens the legal protection to have a firearm on their person outside the home for self-defense.
Alternative options the State uses to address gun violence
Make it possible to get Extreme Risk Protection Orders in all states.
Extreme risk protection orders provide a vital resource for family members and law police to use to intervene and stop a terrible shooting. Concerned family members and members of the local police enforcement in states that have not passed this legislation do not have many choices accessible to them when it comes to preventing persons who exhibit such indicators from gaining access to a firearm. A civil remedy known as an extreme risk protection order gives family members or law enforcement the ability to petition a court to permanently limit a person’s access to weapons if they believe the individual poses an immediate threat of damage to oneself or other people. Also, while the time that the protection order is in effect, the individual is not allowed to purchase any new firearms.
Disarm All Domestic Abusers
Victims of domestic violence face an extremely high level of danger when their abusers get access to firearms. Legal protections for victims are inadequate due to significant gaps in the legislation of domestic abuse susceptible to the threat of lethal violence, even though some people who commit domestic abuse are prohibited by federal law from purchasing or having firearms.
Initiatives that help prevent and intervene in local acts of violence should be supported.
It is a crucial component of any thorough strategy to mitigate gun violence to provide financial backing for evidence-based violence intervention programs. These programs should also encourage participation from all appropriate community stakeholders. Involvement in initiatives that have substantial proof of their effectiveness in reducing violence and that involve all of society’s stakeholders is essential if one wishes to see a reduction in gun violence. Changing the country’s gun regulations is critical, but it won’t be enough to stop gun deaths if we reduce gun violence in our communities. It has been demonstrated that a number of programmatic initiatives, such as Group Violence Intervention, Cure Violence, and Hospital-based Violence Intervention, are designed to combat violence and effectively decrease the amount of violence that occurs in various areas.
Background checks should be required for the purchase of all firearms.
An apparent loophole in the legislation at the federal level enables someone to purchase a firearm without undergoing a background check and without being questioned. Certain people are barred from purchasing or having guns under the existing federal legislation because of a variety of factors, including a past conviction for a crime committed, a history of domestic violence, or involuntary confinement for the treatment of a mental illness. A background check must be performed on every gun sale made by a licensed gun dealer to verify that they are not selling firearms to anyone forbidden from purchasing them.
On the other hand, a significant loophole in the law makes it possible for unlicensed dealers, including private individuals, to sell firearms on the internet, at gun shows, or elsewhere without conducting a background investigation on the buyer. Because of this, those forbidden from purchasing firearms can easily circumvent the law by buying firearms through private transactions.
Put an end to the use of assault rifles and magazines that hold a lot of bullets.
There is no justification for weapons of war in any of our communities.
The lethality of shootings is significantly increased by using assault weapons and high-capacity cartridges, which in turn leads to a more significant number of persons being shot and a greater number of fatalities.
The Gun Violence Restraining Order (GVRO), also known as the red flag statute, in the State of California is another great technique to prevent gun violence. The law was passed in 2014 and took effect at the beginning of 2016. The red flag law’s potential impact on reducing gun violence stems from the fact that it permits law enforcement or family members to temporarily seize an individual’s firearms, ammunition, and magazines in cases of emergency for up to three weeks, with the possibility of an extension of up to a year. According to LA Times writer Tara Law, “21 cases of the mass shooting were prevented due of the red flag statute,” suggesting that this measure is successful. One person described how gun violence was averted at a car dealership when an employee threatened to shoot his superiors and other workers if he were fired. His coworker reported him to the police, and with a judge’s approval, the police were able to seize four firearms and another gun from the suspect. Given that suicide accounts for almost two-thirds of all gun deaths, the fact that this rule prioritizes protecting those who are most likely to inflict harm to themselves or others is fantastic.
Hence, I consider the Gun Violence Restraining Order (GVRO) policy of the State of California, which is sometimes referred to as the red flag statute, to be an additional effective technique for reducing the incidence of gun violence. But before we get into that, I’d want to mention that assault rifles were illegal to make or sell to civilians in 1994, when the law banning assault rifles was finally enacted. This limitation applied to semi-automatic firearms as well as magazines that could hold ten or more rounds of ammunition or more. Fortuitously, the agreement required to be maintained every ten years, so when the time arrived, the house and the senate were both governed by Republicans who were against maintaining the measure. Despite this, there were fewer incidents of mass shootings during the time that the law was in effect. This takes me to my next point, which is that we ought to make it illegal to possess assault rifles. Because shooters in the past have preferred assault rifles because of their substantial, large magazines (30 bullets) and slightly elevated muzzle velocity (3 times the sound wavelength), but instead of conventional explosive possibilities (due to the black powder those who encompass) instead on implications, reinstating the assault rifle ban from will indeed contribute to a reduction of mass shootings. According to Weimer, who proposed the ban, “Assault weapons military-style firearms designed to fire rapidly are a potential danger to our national security, and we should treat them as such; anyone who pretends there really is nothing we can do is lying and holding that view should be disqualifying for anyone seeking to lead our country.” If this ban were to pass, it would make it more difficult for individuals to acquire these dangerous weapons.
In my perspective, the alternative way to effectively reduce gun violence is to enact stricter gun restrictions, such as universal background check systems, red flag laws, and a complete ban on the sale and ownership of assault rifles. This is because people are forced to play by the rules in order to survive in this environment. Fewer illegally marketed firearms would mean fewer opportunities for violence, both against oneself and against others. Many gun rights advocates will dispute what I say below, claiming that I am violating their Second Amendment rights or giving the government too much authority. Kindness requires that they at least acknowledge that the target of the criticism is gun violence, not themselves.
References
Dodaj, A. (2019). THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT IN THE US. ANGLISTICUM. Journal of the Association-Institute for English Language and American Studies, 8(11), 62-74.
Frassetto, M. A. (2018). The First Congressional Debate of Public Carry and What It Tells Us about Firearm Regionalism. Campbell L. Rev., 40, 335.
Greenlee, J. (2019). Concealed Carry and the Right to Bear Arms. Federalist Society Review, 20.
Lott, J. R. (2022). Concealed Carry Permit Holders Across the United States: 2022. Available at SSRN.
Peters, B. G. (2021). Advanced introduction to public policy. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Rosenblatt, A. (2021). Proper Cause for Concern: New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. Duke J. Const. L. & Pub. Pol’y Sidebar, 17, 239.
Rowhani-Rahbar, A., Zatzick, D. F., & Rivara, F. P. (2019). Long-lasting consequences of gun violence and mass shootings. JAMA, 321(18), 1765-1766.
Ruben, E. (2021). The Gun Rights Movement and” arms” Under the Second Amendment. Brennan Center for Justice.
Smith, M. W. (2020). Assault weapon bans unconstitutional laws for the made-up category of firearms. Harv. JL & Pub. Pol’y, 43, 357.
Weimer, D. L., & Vining, A. R. (2017). Policy analysis: Concepts and practice. Taylor & Francis.
write