NEW YORK - Looks like another (partial) win for gun-owning patriots in New York.
In yet another victory for Second Amendment advocates in New York, a three-judge panel last week issued a 261-page decision blocking significant parts of that state’s anti-gun law. The ruling, however, does allow the state to create so-called “sensitive sites” that limit where gun owners may carry.
Truth Press reports that despite allowing New York to define such sensitive sites, it ruled the state’s attempt to bar lawful gun owners from carrying guns in churches, synagogues, and other places of worship constituted government overreach.
The panel noted its decision would likely not be the final ruling on the state’s gun laws since current litigation might include appeals to the Supreme Court. In this particular ruling, the judges said their focus was on a request by Gun Owners of America and other plaintiffs for a preliminary injunction to block enforcement of the law, not a review of the law itself.
The draconian law would require anyone seeking a pistol permit to appear for an interview with an “official” to ensure they are of “good moral character.” That requirement would appear on its face to be vague, which the panel seemed in some manner to disagree with.
They called such a requirement “not facially unconstitutional. A reasoned denial of a carry license to a person who, if armed, would pose a danger to themselves, others, or to the public is consistent with the well-recognized historical tradition of preventing dangerous individuals from possessing weapons.”
One could argue that “tradition” doesn’t trump “constitutional,” and the panel conceded that challenges to that provision could have merit.
The judges also agreed with New York lawmakers that so-called “sensitive” sites such as schools, hospitals, and mass transit could be defined as gun-free zones. Ironically, a lot of shootings by criminals occur in schools and mass transit. Emasculating citizens from being able to defend themselves from the bad guys would not appear on its face to be constitutional.
One area where the judges got it right was the requirement that gun owners would need explicit permission from property owners to carry in privately owned places open to the public. That provision covered stores, restaurants, and other places where lawful permit holders could only carry firearms if a sign were explicitly posted granting permission.
“No matter how expansively we analogize, we do not see how a tradition of prohibiting illegal hunting on private lands supports prohibiting the lawful carriage of firearms for self-defense on private property open [to] the public,” the decision said, thereby rejecting the state’s claim that laws banning hunting on someone else’s land applied in this case, which was a stretch of epic proportions.
The judges also tossed a portion of the law demanding access to the social media accounts of anyone seeking a permit, even those that use a pseudonym.
“Although the review of public social media posts by a licensing officer poses no constitutional difficulties, requiring applicants to disclose even pseudonymous names under which they post online imposes an impermissible infringement on Second Amendment rights that is unsupported by analogs in the historical record and moreover presents serious First Amendment concerns,” the ruling continued.
“Anyone familiar with most social media platforms knows that nearly all handles are pseudonymous, at least to the extent that the poster’s identity is not immediately apparent. Requiring disclosure of handles is thus to demand that applicants effectively forfeit their right to pseudonymous speech on social media (where so much speech now takes place). That significant burden on the right to bear arms is not one for which we see persuasive historical analogues,” the ruling said.
The judges also threw out a ban on churches arming their parishioners.
“The state of New York can’t tell houses of worship how they protect their people,” said Jeremy Dys, senior counsel at First Liberty Institute, which represents a pastor who is a plaintiff in the case,” WNYW-TV reported.
“At this stage, the State has not demonstrated that allowing church leaders to regulate their congregants’ firearms is more dangerous than allowing other property owners to do the same,” the ruling said.
“It is hard to see how the law advances the interests of religious organizations, as a whole, by denying them agency to choose for themselves whether to permit firearms,” the ruling said.
Some New York officials had already determined they would not enforce that provision, calling it unconstitutional.
In 2019, an armed churchgoer, Jack Wilson, killed an armed man who opened fire inside a church in White Settlement, Texas, killing two people. As a result of his heroism, Wilson was awarded the Governor’s Medal of Courage by Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R).
“When events arise, you’re going to do one of two things. You’re either going to step up and do what’s right or walk away. And I’m not one to walk away,” Wilson said.
Wilson's ability to carry his firearm inside that Texas church likely saved countless lives that day.
In response to the panel’s ruling, Erich Pratt, Senior Vice President of Gun Owners of America, issued a statement on the group’s website, thankful for the partial victory but unhappy the group didn’t see the entire law scrapped.
“Governor Hochul and her cabal in Albany never seem to get the message, and in turn, GOA is proud to have played a major role in rebuking her unconstitutional law. Nevertheless, this was not a total victory, and we will continue the fight until this entire law is sent to the bowels of history where it belongs.”
Meanwhile, Sam Paredes, speaking for the Board of Directors of the Gun Owners Foundation, was unhappy with the court’s decision:
“Frustratingly, much of this Court’s opinion reads like an insubordinate rebuke of the Supreme Court, which is a disgrace and cannot be allowed to stand. We are weighing action at the nation’s High Court.”
Comments