Criminal Justice

Gun Control Scheme Harms Black and Hispanic New Yorkers, Public Defenders Tell Supreme Court

“New York enacted its firearm licensing requirements to criminalize gun ownership by racial and ethnic minorities.”


The U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments this fall in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Corlett, a case about the constitutionality of New York's requirement that anyone seeking a license to carry a concealed handgun in public first satisfy a local official that he has "proper cause" to do so.

Big cases about hot button issues like gun control always attract a lot of friend of the court briefs, and this one is no exception. Many of those briefs will have zero impact on the ruling. But a brief filed this month just might make a difference.

The brief is from a coalition of public defense lawyer organizations, including the Black Attorneys of Legal Aid, the Bronx Defenders, and Brooklyn Defender Services. They are urging the Supreme Court to overrule New York's gun licensing scheme for both violating the Second Amendment and disparately harming black and Hispanic people.

"Each year," the groups state in their brief, "we represent hundreds of indigent people whom New York criminally charges for exercising their right to keep and bear arms. For our clients, New York's licensing requirement renders the Second Amendment a legal fiction. Worse, virtually all our clients whom New York prosecutes for exercising their Second Amendment rights are Black and Hispanic." And that, the brief argues, "is no accident. New York enacted its firearm licensing requirements to criminalize gun ownership by racial and ethnic minorities. That remains the effect of its enforcement by police and prosecutors today."

According to the public defender groups, New York's scheme has "brutal" consequences for their clients. They write:

New York police have stopped, questioned, and frisked our clients on the streets. They have invaded our clients' homes with guns drawn, terrifying them, their families, and their children. They have forcibly removed our clients from their homes and communities and abandoned them in dirty and violent jails and prisons for days, weeks, months, and years. They have deprived our clients of their jobs, children, livelihoods, and ability to live in this country. And they have branded our clients as 'criminals' and 'violent felons' for life. They have done all of this only because our clients exercised a constitutional right.

It's possible that such arguments will resonate with Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who is perhaps the Court's leading critic of overpolicing and related law enforcement abuses. This brief seems to be right up her alley. As the public defense lawyers make clear, a ruling against New York's gun control scheme would be a victory not only for the Second Amendment but for criminal justice reform.

NEXT: Google CEO Sundar Pichai Is Right: Companies That Dominate Today May Be Gone Tomorrow

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. All gun control “laws” are unconstitutional and therefore illegal. Ignore all unconstitutional and illegal laws.

    See 2nd amendment for guaranteed protection.

    1. First sentence is absolutely correct. Agree 100%.

      Ted Nugent said he only needed the 2A to carry.

      Well turns out that’s not true. To be legal he got himself deputized which enabled him to get a federal permit only available to law enforcement.

      Fuck you Ted.

      1. With Teddy, the 2A is a Free-For-All. He clearly has a Stranglehold on the argument.

        1. Gotta put the Hammerdown when you’re hunting the Great White Buffalo.

          Still, fuck you Ted.

          1. Fuck you sarc/jeff (can’t tell ’em apart)

            1. Sarc sockpuppet is after the meds kick in.

            2. Fantastic work-from-home opportunity for everyone… Work for three to eight a day and start getting paid in the range of 7,000-14,000 dollars a month… Weekly payments Learn More details Good luck…

              See….. Visit Here

        2. He hasn’t really been the same since he caught cat scratch fever.

      2. Not to be legal, but to avoid having to deal with the patchwork of bad laws, as he tours the various states.

        You’re just jealous because he found a way around the problem.

      3. I just bought a brand new BMW after having made $6375 this past one month and just over 12k last 4 week. This is the best and most financially rewarding job I’ve ever had. I actually started this few Weeks ago and almost immediately started to bring home minimum 74BUCKS p/h… Read More

    2. “Ignore all unconstitutional and illegal laws.”

      How is that working out for the people described by the public defenders?

      1. It doesn’t apply to black and brown people.

  2. el Presidente Biden and his banana republic traitors think they are running America. They arent.

    You know who else thought they could run a banana republic?

    1. A 16 year old cashier at the mall? Ohhh different banana republic

    2. Chiquita?

    3. Dr. Zaius?

      1. He finally made a monkey out of us all.

    4. Gwen Stefani?

      1. I’d still bone her. God she is still sexy as hell. Gotta give Blake credit. First he got to bone Miranda Lambert and now he is boning Gwen. The dude has game.

        1. His chill to pull ratio is high

        2. You would give her your B A N A N A?

          1. In a heartbeat. And my wife has already given me permission if it ever happened.

            1. And when you came home after the encounter and asked your wife if she wanted to hear about it, her response: Don’t Speak.

              1. LOL. Good one.

              2. I know just what you’re thinkin’

                1. Thank God you were around. Nobody would have gotten the joke without your help.

    5. Carmen Miranda?

      1. What are you, 90?

    6. Carmen Miranda?

  3. Interesting that ACLU and other morons have equated 2A rights with “racism”. They are fucking ludicrously wrong as usual and got shouted down over the weekend. The left is nothing but piss ant tyrants.

  4. These policies date back to the Sullivan Act, in 1911. “The act was named for its primary legislative sponsor, state senator Timothy Sullivan, a notoriously corrupt Tammany Hall Democratic politician.” (Wikipedia)

    It has always been “selectively” enforced” “‘…it was passed on a wave of anti-immigrant and anti-Italian rhetoric as a measure to disarm an alleged criminal element. The police department who granted the licenses could easily discriminate against “undesirable” elements. Days before the law took effect The New York Times published an article saying “Low-browed foreigners bargained for weapons of every description and gloated over their good fortune in hearing of the drop in the gun market before it was too late”.[18] After Rossi’s conviction The New York Times called this “warning to the Italian community” both “timely and exemplary”.”‘ (Wikipedia)

    1. Democrats want the votes to have political power. The democrats dont want those voters to have guns so they dont have worry about ammo box consequences when democrats steal from taxpayers.

    2. Anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim, anti-Mexican…. The song remains the same.

      1. +++

  5. >>has “proper cause” to do so

    if alive, has proper cause.

  6. In 20 years the democrats will be SHOCKED to find out that the war on guns is racist.

    1. I need coffee. Please elaborate.

      1. It is racist.

        They will spent the next 20 years denying that fact, then no longer be able to.

        1. 1) They are not after your guns.

          2) They are doing something but it is not what you see/think.

          3) It is already fully implemented and too late to change now.

  7. Gun Control Scheme Harms Black and Hispanic New Yorkers, Public Defenders Tell Supreme Court

    People of European ancestry are not affected. I guess.

    1. They are, but, historically, some groups have been singled-out for “extra-special” attention.

      1. But it’s not historical now, we live in the present.

        1. The only thing that has changed is the groups.

    2. Fuck white people. Get woke, bruh!

    3. Yes, but CRT tells us that if a law puts more Blacks in jail than whites it is racism. Principles of anti-racism tell us that law must go.

      1. Several years ago Pittsburgh had a Black City Councilwoman who complained that 85% of the arrests in her District were Blacks. When it was pointed out that 93% of the people IN her District WERE Black, she said that she didn’t care, arrest more White people.

  8. Proper cause = 2A. Any government agent attempting to limit the right of a US citizen to bear arms should be tried for insurrection.

    The three states with the lowest violent crime rates in the country are all constitutional carry states.

    1. Was going to reply but he’s muted me. Bummer. Think he’s a fellow Mainah. If he’d get that stick out of his ass we could go shooting or something.

      1. So what? You’ve muted a ton of folks, TDS0-addled piece of shit.

        1. Not as many as have muted his stupid troll ass.

          1. I muted him. During an entire week, none of the posts I read of his had anything cogent in them.

            1. I appreciate the mute feature we now have; you see a lot of threads and various responses from those who seem to want to argue with them and call them names, but not reading the garbage they spew really makes this a nice place to be; not because I only want to hear my side and enjoy my confirmation bias, but because it is actually civil; I don’t mind someone having a different belief or POV with whom I can discuss an issue, but trolls are not here for that. They just want to disrupt, enrage, and distract and put as much focus as they can on themselves.

              1. I’m uncivil?

                1. “They just want to disrupt, enrage, and distract and put as much focus as they can on themselves.”

                  this is you.

                2. You misspelled T-D-S-A-D-D-L-E-D A-S-S-H-O-L-E.

                  1. R-O-L-A-I-D-S

              2. The rule is: don’t feed the trolls. Muting them makes this easier.

      2. Or make friends offline. Or are you that insufferable? Stop trolling maybe?

  9. Interesting side note, the NY legislature sells bumper stickers that say “guns don’t kill people, black people kill people”

    1. *black people with a gun…

      1. OJ used a knife.

  10. OT: Montclair, [CA,] city workers who choose not to wear a mask must wear stickers that prove they are fully vaccinated against COVID-19.

    No word on what they must wear if they choose not to wear stickers. Orange jump suits, perhaps.

    1. Yellow six pointed stars? Just a suggestion. Not sure where I got the idea from…

      1. German democrats?

        1. National socialists that had s critical race theory.

  11. Ooh, this is going to get interesting.

  12. It’s telling that self-defense is never considered a “proper cause”. Translation: your life doesn’t matter because you’re not a member of the self-styled elite.

    1. “Oh, very well. My cause is protecting unarmed Black people.”

  13. Bullshit. Totalitarian progressive policies NEVER disproportionately penalize vulnerable and/or marginalized people who are the least able to defend themselves against the state.

    1. That’s correct — they are true “equal opportunity oppressors.” Except for those folks who they like, of course.

  14. You know that term “Saturday night special” that the gun-grabbers like to toss around to disparage the very idea of affordable weapons? When the Democrats first coined the term, it was in the south during the Jim Crow era, and the full name was “niggertown saturday night special”.

    Gun-grabbing has always been motivated by Democrats’ fears of poor people, mostly black, being able to defend themselves from their terrorist auxiliaries: the KKK originally, and BLM and “antifa” today.


    1. The militia only act was first used to defend an Arkansas law that prohibited free blacks, Amerindians and immigrants from buying and owning guns. The law was upheld by the Arkansas Supreme court in the 1840s under the interpretation that the 2A only applies to militias and therefore, since the above groups couldn’t serve in the militia (for racist reasons) they couldn’t own guns.

      1. Argument not act.

      2. “Amerindians”

        I like it. Not stealing it, but it’s clever.

        1. If that’s the first time you’ve heard that, you’ve ‘muted’ entirely too many people in your life. Which is no great surprise; accepting ‘outside’ information is not something TDS-addled assholes often do.

          1. He only learned what a Cuban sandwich was a week ago.

          2. If by that you mean I don’t listen to Hannity and such, then yes. I suppose.

    2. I thought that was a Skynyrd song.

      1. I’m a simple, kind of man….

    3. And actual “Saturday night special” laws predate the term by quite a bit. They first were passed in the south, and some of earliest versions stated the only “safe” handguns to own were the Colt Single Action Army and Single Action Navy revolvers (which happened to be the most expensive ones on the market, and also happened to already be owned by most white families who fought in the Civil War)

  15. This is one of the Gun Rights activist biggest short fallings, they’ve never fully played up the racist roots of gun control nor how racist gun control enforcement is. If you want to talk about systemic racism look no further then gun control. The first gun control laws, and even the only for militia argument against the 2A, were rooted in keeping blacks, Amerindians and immigrants from being able to purchase firearms. Gun control is the last vessel of Jim Crow laws left in this country and we need to do a better job arguing both their historical roots and the modern impacts.

    1. Agreed.

    2. Or they are taking the high road of not calling everything racist and letting the fact that people should be allowed guns rest on its on moral foundation

      1. Sometimes the racist label fits.

        Unfortunately the Democrats have done an excellent marketing job to obfuscate the fact that they are still the same racists they were 70 years ago.

    3. To successfully play up the racial angle, you have to have a receptive audience. The DNC and the Media (I repeat myself) aren’t that audience.

      1. Very true; if it don’t get traction it don’t get action

  16. “Worse, virtually all our clients whom New York prosecutes for exercising their Second Amendment rights are Black and Hispanic.” And that, the brief argues, “is no accident. New York enacted its firearm licensing requirements to criminalize gun ownership by racial and ethnic minorities. That remains the effect of its enforcement by police and prosecutors today.”

    Hey we can play this game too:


  17. “It’s possible that such arguments will resonate with Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who is perhaps the Court’s leading critic of overpolicing and related law enforcement abuses. This brief seems to be right up her alley.”

    “Possible” but not likely. I predict her boner for gun control will win out over any concern regarding over-policing of minorities any day.

  18. This reminds me of how NYC’s stop and frisk policy was overturned because it was applied unevenly racially. Horrible reasoning, it was wrong because it was wrong for everyone. But it did get it overturned.

    1. If you see something, frisk something. While it was sunset at the NYPD level the governor of New York continued its use.

  19. The common denominator in this is economic. These groups do not have enough economic power to hold the politicians accountable for what they and the bureaucrats do. If they had enough money to affect political campaigns, the politicians would hold the bureaucrats accountable.

  20. Disparate impact is a bullshit legal theory and doesn’t belong anywhere near the constitution. It really doesn’t matter if unconstitutional laws predominantly affect black or white or green or plaid people, they are unconstitutional all the same. The rules of how we govern ourselves do not change arbitrarily based on how many people are affected by them.

  21. a guy named John Sulivan was mayr of NYC back about 1910 and HE coerced his pals running the city to enact the “Sullivan Laws”, the firwt gun control laws in NYC. The law “applied” to everyoie, but he was way ahead of George Orwell… he was a firm believer that some pigs are just more equal than other pigs. Thus, the gun prohibitioin laws ONLY applied to SUlllivan’s rivals, the Italians. The Irisih were all on his team. Anyone caught with a gun, run a make on him. If he was “somebody” that was more equal than some “sombeody else” guys, he was clear. If he was one of the “unequal” class, he was toast.
    Not much has changed since then. except for the names. And some skin colour an irrelevant detail.

    NYC”s “system” of more equal bsed on whatever has got to go. Once it falls there, other places will have to pitch it too, else they’ll be in hot water before long. Most of California in the larger “good” counties, cities like Chicgo, Baltimore, ALL of New Jersey, Let us hope SCOTUS do their job this time instead of playing shrinking violet and melting in the corners where no one can see them. That bit on the old parchment says SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. And yes, they very definitely DID have handguns, and semoautomatic repeating battle rifles. Anyone could make, buy, borrow, build, and in any other way OWN and carry about with themselved upon their persons anywhere they chose to go. Most towns had laws MANDATING at least the men carry their long guns with them for Sunday meetings. No, not to “make peace” at the meetinghouse, but to preserve life as they went from home to there and back and at times whilst they were there.

  22. Dems: “Isn’t that cute, someone is calling *us* racist! They think they can out-demagogue us on *that* issue? All we have to do is shout more loudly.”

  23. I fear for our safety in the future following these rampant acts of unkindness towards others – is this lack of logic or what.

  24. “Black Attorneys of Legal Aid, the Bronx Defenders, and Brooklyn Defender Services. ”

    Race traitors.

    Nothing good can come from people of color getting out of jail because of conservative gun nuts winning cases from a conservative court.

  25. On pages 36 and 37 of the Joint Appendix, which you will find on the SCOTUS docket webpage for NYSRPA v. Bruen, is the sole count from the Complaint filed by the NYSRPA.

    Nowhere in the sole count, or anywhere in the Complaint, will you find an allegation that the “proper cause” provision in the New York handgun licensing law was racially motivated or has been applied in a racially disproportionate manner.

    Keep in mind that the NYSRPA did not challenge the constitutionality of the licensing law. The only thing being challenged is the “proper cause” requirement for the issuance of a license to carry a handgun concealed. New York state does not prohibit the Open Carry of rifles and shotguns, and the NYSRPA did not challenge either the New York State ban on the Open Carry of handguns or the New York City ban on the Open Carry of handguns and long guns.

    The justices are adamant that they do not consider claims or issues brought before them that were not raised and litigated in the lower courts, especially claims that were not argued before the court of appeals, or the state court of last resort (on a Federal issue).

    There is only one question presented to the Supreme Court, and that one question (written by the justices) does not mention race.

    There is not one justice, let alone five, who are going to strike down the “good cause” requirement for a concealed carry permit because race is not a question presented or a claim that was made in the district court and then raised and argued again before the court of appeals.

    1. Charles,
      You are the only one who pointed out the interesting fact that the Justices themselves wrote the question they will be considering.
      It is a signal they plan to respond with a very narrow ruling.
      One that will not require strict scrutiny of gun control measures.
      One that will not strike down current laws against open carry, assault rifles, red flag allegations and magazine limits.

      1. docduracoat.

        Thanks, but I am not the only one who noticed that the Justices rewrote the “question presented” although I was probably the first one to Tweet that the NYSRPA brief on the merits ignored the question the justices rewrote.

        Chief Justice Roberts prefers narrow answers to narrow questions, and Justices Thomas and Alito aren’t going to answer a question not presented. In particular, they are not going to answer a question not presented in a claim not made in the lower courts (that “proper cause” is racist). Add to their number Justices Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor who aren’t going to find a concealed carry right all nine justices couldn’t find in the Heller opinion, not to mention that the NYSRPA forfeited any claim that concealed carry is a right protected by the Second Amendment by failing to argue that it is in the NYSRPA brief on the merits.

        “Strict Scrutiny,” like all of the tiers of scrutiny, results in judges engaging in interest balancing (see Breyer’s dissent to Heller). Notwithstanding Chief Justice Roberts’ rejection of the tiers of scrutiny in the oral argument to District of Columbia v. Heller, the application of strict scrutiny does not mean that a law will be struck down.

        Restrictions on concealed carry, including the 19th-century prohibitions on concealed carry, survive strict scrutiny.

    2. The real issue is the NYS permit itself. This isn’t the usual concealed carry permit, it is a ownership permit.

      TL : DR In NYS you can’t get permission to buy a pistol or ammo unless you have four long-term friends, living in your county, who will attest to your “good moral character”, then wait up to six months for the county judge to determine if you need a gun what you can do with that handgun.

      You can only apply to the sheriff or Chief of Police of the county you live in. When you apply for your ownership permit you have to submit four notarized letters of reference from unrelated county residents who have known you for at least three years. These letters are to affirm your “good moral character” and are supposed to be mailed separately by the writer.

      The judge who determines if you issued a permit is the one who decides which type of permit you receive. The judge can, at his discretion, issue you a concealed carry permit, a sporting permit, or a home permit. There was a judge in my county that refused to issue carry permits PERIOD.

      You have to have a “pistol permit” in order to purchase a handgun. This permit lists all of the guns you own and you have to present it when buying pistol ammunition, the FFL is supposed to cross reference the ammo you’re buying with the handguns you own.

      1. CFred, the NYSRPA does not challenge the “permit itself.”

  26. I just bought a brand new BMW after having made $6375 this past one month and just over 12k last 5 week. This is the best and most financially rewarding job I’ve ever had. I actually started this few Weeks ag0 and almost immediately started to bring home minimum 74BUCKS p/h…

  27. “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

    Unspeakably clear.

    But if “me brown, me victim,” convinces poor suckers these days, then so be it.

  28. Is that really how it works in New York? I mean I knew NY was ass backwards but damn. And people tolerate that shit? There is a black market for guns all over the country, but it’s no surprise that it’s thriving in NY with laws and regulations like that. I can see NYC having laws like that because of all the AOC/Schumer types that live there, but for that to be the law for the whole state is beyond the pale. What would be “reasonable” for the city just doesn’t make sense in the rest of the the more rural parts I mean. I have lots of guns and I have concealed carry, but if I lived there I would be a criminal bc there is no way on God’s green earth that I’m going to put up with some stupid shit like that just to buy a box of 9mm ammo. And furthermore Trump would get a bj from Pelosi before I let the govt know of every gun I own. It seems like NY is trying to make criminals out of citizens who want to exercise their 2a right. How the hell has this not been successfully challenged?

  29. The higher rate of insecuritiesinsecurities is just the problem this enconomy is face right now ,and how to address should comecome from each citizens,

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.