U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- A nationally-syndicated editorial attempted to persuade readers on the merits of New York’s problematic “may issue” handgun permit law and why the U.S. Supreme Court should leave it intact. They made a better case for why the law should be struck down.
The Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen and their decision will likely come at the end of the current term. Early reviews suggest the Supreme Court justices were skeptical of the law, which might be an insight that NYSRPA might be expecting a significant Second Amendment victory.
Time On Your Side
Bloomberg News’ Editorial Board told readers they know better about community safety, self-defense, and why law-abiding Americans, specifically New Yorkers, should or should not be allowed to carry firearms beyond their homes. They misrepresented the Supreme Court’s role and jurisprudence in arguments favoring New York’s “may issue” permit law. They claimed time and age are more important than Constitutionality.
“A recent hearing left the impression that the Supreme Court…is inclined to strike down a gun law that’s been on the books for more than 100 years,” the editors opined. “That would be a grievous error…” They added, “The law, passed by New York state at the turn of the last century, says that those who wish to carry a firearm in public must show ‘proper cause,’…”
Time isn’t the legal measuring stick regarding laws restricting fundamental American rights. The “time” that matters in constitutional terms is the history and tradition at the time of enactment of the Second Amendment and the 14th Amendment. Time is not on Bloomberg’s side. There’s a stronger argument for striking New York’s “may issue” law – nearly 415-years worth. Jonathan Turley, a professor at George Washington University Law School, described the flaws of New York’s law.
“There are few constitutional rights that have been debated so long in this country as gun rights,” Turley explained. “Indeed, before other Englishmen were given a written guarantee of the right to bear arms, colonists in Virginia in 1607 were given such a written guarantee by the Crown.”
The right of Americans to protect themselves was recognized more than 400 years ago as God-given. The Founders enumerated these rights, including the Second Amendment, “unalienable” and “endowed by their Creator,” and are protected as rights of individuals under the U.S. Constitution.
Self-Defense Arbiters
New York is one of eight states imposing “may issue” restrictions on concealed carry permit applicants. Bureaucrats are the arbiters of God-given rights when deciding if law-abiding New Yorkers have a “proper cause” to bear arms. Americans do not need to look back 400 years, or even 100, to understand the problems with this system. No one, for example, would continence a need to show an unelected bureaucrat “proper cause” to exercise First Amendment rights.
Last year in California, another “may issue” state with strict gun control laws, Santa Clara County’s district attorney indicted four people, including some within the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s office, of bribery and conspiracy for trading handgun permits for iPads. In New York, federal prosecutors uncovered a pay-to-play scheme within the New York Police Department’s “may issue” licensing division where workers were paid thousands of dollars to rubber-stamp carry permits and four officers were arrested.
The Founding Fathers had the foresight to recognize rights, especially those regarding firearms, must be enshrined and guaranteed to keep them from corrupt government officials. NYSRPA’s Supreme Court challenge to New York’s “may issue” law is a prime example, regardless of how long the state law has been on the books.
Acknowledging the Problem
Bloomberg’s editorial was syndicated in several news outlets, including The Washington Post, the Orlando Sentinel, the Quad City Times and others. The editors recognize the ongoing crime surge. They acknowledge criminals, including those in New York, already illegally possess firearms, “making crowded city streets, subways and buses less safe.” The suggestion that law-abiding citizens must show “proper cause” to protect themselves from vicious criminals is preposterous.
In Los Angeles, District Attorney George Gascon’s leniency towards criminals is well documented, including announcing the release of a convicted murderer after serving only a fraction of a 50-year sentence. The LAPD also announced by press release they couldn’t adequately protect the victims of follow-home robberies and that victims should “cooperate and comply.”
In New York City, the police commissioner and outgoing mayor can’t keep city residents safe and only throw blame at each other while crime surges. It’s no surprise the new mayor, Eric Adams, won his election running on a message of community safety. It would be leaving New York’s “may issue” law in place that would in fact keep law-abiding New Yorkers in greater danger.
In the last eleven months, 16.7 million Americans passed a National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) verification to purchase a firearm. It’s the second-highest year on record, behind only last year’s record year of 21 million. Their message to bureaucrats and editorial boards across the country is simple. If they can’t get public safety from those in charge, they’ll do it. The Supreme Court can ensure they can.
About The National Shooting Sports Foundation
NSSF is the trade association for the firearm industry. Its mission is to promote, protect and preserve hunting and shooting sports. Formed in 1961, NSSF has a membership of thousands of manufacturers, distributors, firearm retailers, shooting ranges, sportsmen’s organizations, and publishers nationwide. For more information, visit nssf.org
Proof that ALL licensing schemes are unconstitutional? If a license is required (even in a may issue state), is there a legal path for someone who is homeless and penniless to obtain and carry a firearm for self defense? If not, there is no right, just granted privilege, at the whim of government.
at the whim of PEOPLE who are typically psychopathic control freaks and administer government.
When you get down to brass tacks you find that terms like “proper cause” are really old Jim Crow concepts that are better defined as ‘proper pigmentation’ or ‘proper social status’ or ‘proper national origin’ and so on. And this is exactly the case in the counties referenced in California and other progressive utopias. If you are connected you get favors. In NYC the connected, whether they be Donald Trump or Chuck Schumer get a permit. When I was stationed there (sadly) for two years while in the military I was told to go see an alderman with check book… Read more »
Interesting.
Anywhere on the East coast where a Sheriff is a question, things turn to HOW MUCH CAN YOU AFFORD????????
That is just another reason to boycott the least coast.
and no one in site to arrest the police under title 18 we need militias set up like rotary clubs where they support each other but are local, when leftrads start something group drags them off to court
Militias had the power of convening grand juries which is one reason the psychopathic control freaks had to do away with them.
When they talk about getting their editorials out to the public, that should be easy. The left has been busy buying up small town and rural newspapers throughout Red areas, to convince us of the “truth”. Local newspaper where I live in Utah was right leaning, USA Network bought it and drastically changed it. Every article and column is by their network. The editorials are now by a leftist group, Writers on the Range, not by Larry Elder or others of his caliber. I truly believe this is a plot to change the minds of us happily residing in Red… Read more »
“Bureaucrats are the arbiters of God-given rights when deciding if law-abiding New Yorkers have a “proper cause” to bear arms”
WRONG…the final “arbiter” is the “Law enforcement officer”. He/she can follow their oath and ignore a “violation” of this “law” or he/she can VIOLATE their oath of office and uphold this “law”. Unfortunately they typically will VIOLATE THEIR OATH OF OFFICE. THEY are the problem. I’ve said it over and over. ENFORCERS are the problem. WITHOUT enforcers the “bureaucrats” are neutered puppies. “Lawmakers” without enforcers are POWERLESS! Ever see a “lawmaker” out their enforcing their “laws”? I didn’t think so…
The final arbiter is the judge. “The Law is … what the Judge says it is.” John Chipman Grey