New York Treats a Second Amendment Right As a Crime
The Supreme Court should reject a law that bars ordinary people from carrying guns for self-defense.

Before he was elected mayor of New York City last week, Eric Adams raised some eyebrows by saying he would carry a handgun to protect himself and any houses of worship he might visit. While those remarks were controversial, the real scandal is that ordinary New Yorkers cannot legally carry guns for self-defense—a privilege that Adams takes for granted as a former police officer.
That double standard came into focus last week, when the Supreme Court considered a constitutional challenge to New York's carry permit law. Unlike the vast majority of states, which allow residents to carry guns in public if they meet a short list of objective criteria, New York gives local officials broad discretion to decide whether an applicant has "proper cause" to exercise a right guaranteed by the Second Amendment.
Former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement, speaking on behalf of the law's opponents, emphasized that applicants cannot pass the state's amorphous test by expressing a general desire to protect themselves against criminal assault. "In order to exercise a constitutional right that New York is willing to concede extends outside the home," he noted, "you have to show that you have an atypical need to exercise the right that distinguishes you from the general community."
That situation, Clement said, "describes a privilege" rather than "a constitutional right." Most of the justices seemed inclined to agree.
"The idea that you need a license to exercise the right" is "unusual in the context of the Bill of Rights," Chief Justice John Roberts noted. Justice Brett Kavanaugh added that "too much discretion" in deciding who can exercise a constitutional right "can lead to all sorts of problems."
Justice Samuel Alito suggested what that kind of discretion can mean for "ordinary law-abiding citizens who feel they need to carry a firearm for self-defense." He noted that "people who work late at night in Manhattan," such as doormen, office cleaners, dishwashers, nurses, and orderlies, routinely get off work "around midnight" or later and might "have to walk some distance through a high-crime area" on their way home.
If such a person applied for a carry permit, Alito said, he would be out of luck in the absence of a specific threat along the lines of "I am going to mug you next Thursday." It would not be enough to say "there have been a lot of muggings in this area, and I am scared to death."
A brief from the Black Attorneys of Legal Aid and several other public defender groups goes beyond hypotheticals. It describes the case of Benjamin Prosser, who "had repeatedly been the victim of violent stranger assaults and robberies on the street."
Prosser decided to carry a gun for self-defense when he took a job that required two hours of travel every day. After he was charged with a weapon offense that carried a mandatory minimum penalty of more than three years in prison, he pleaded guilty to a lesser offense that still marked him as a "violent felon."
Another defendant, Sam Little, "survived a face slashing and lost multiple friends to gun violence." He served eight months in jail after he was prosecuted for "carrying a gun to defend himself and his young son."
Little was arrested after police stopped and frisked him. As Clement noted, New York's virtual ban on carrying guns "leads to stopping and frisking everybody," because anyone caught with a firearm is presumptively guilty of breaking the law.
The New York Police Department dramatically scaled back its "stop, question, and frisk" program after years of complaints that it routinely harassed young black and Latino men for no good reason. But Mayor-elect Adams, who never needs to worry that he will be arrested for carrying a gun, supports judicious use of the tactic, as long as police comply with constitutional constraints. That is not really possible when the state treats people as criminals for exercising their Second Amendment rights.
© Copyright 2021 by Creators Syndicate Inc.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
"Another defendant, Sam Little, "survived a face slashing and lost multiple friends to gun violence." He served eight months in jail after he was prosecuted for "carrying a gun to defend himself and his young son."
I blame Trump.
I am making $165 an hour working from home. i was greatly surprised at the same time as my neighbour advised me she changed into averaging $ninety five however I see the way it works now. I experience masses freedom now that i'm my non-public boss.
that is what I do...... Visit Here
Exactly. Real coastal progressives know living with crime is part of big city life and are sophisticated enough to surrender their valuables without compromising their values.
Start earning today from $600 to $754 easily by working online from home. Last month i have generate and received $19663 from this job by giving this only maximum 2 hours a day of my life. Easiest job in the world and earning from this job are just awesome.RGi Everybody can now get this job and start earning cash online right now by just follow instructions click on this site...
For more info here.........VISIT HERE
uhm trump is pro-gun
First, that was sarcasm.
Second, eh. Trump was pro-gun when it suited him and anti-gun when that suited him better. His ATF's unconstitutional "bump stock" ban certainly did not advance the cause of gun rights. The best you can say for Trump on gun issues is that he was less bad (by a lot) than his opponents.
These are 2 pay checks $78367 and $87367. that i received in last 2 months. I am very happy that i can make thousands in my part time and now i am enjoying my life. Everybody can do this and earn lots of dollars from home in very short time period.FBn Your Success is one step away Click Below Webpage…..
Just visit this website now.............PAYBUZZ
Putting aside for the moment that concealed carry is not a right unless, like abortion and gay marriage, the Supreme Court invents one, take notice of the reason given by the NRA lawyer (Paul Clement) as to why Open Carry can be banned in favor of concealed carry (New York State does not ban the Open Carry of most rifles and shotguns).
Paul Clement said that Open Carry can be banned because people feel differently about Open Carry and concealed carry today than they did in the past.
If the Second Amendment right depends upon the "feelings" of the great unwashed at any given time then there is no right to bear arms, at least not in New York, or California, or Hawaii, or Maryland, or anyplace else where "the people" don't trust themselves to keep and bear arms openly or concealed.
Carry is a right. If carrying is a right then carrying concealed is a right.
Not necessarily. Carry is a right but rational restrictions on concealed carry could be considered the 2nd Amendment's equivalent of the 1st Amendment's 'viewpoint-neutral time, place and manner' restrictions.
Hmm, how about anonymous or pseudonymous writing?
Interesting analogy. The Supreme Court has held bans on anonymity to be not viewpoint-neutral. Viewpoint-neutrality is the important control in 1st Amendment restrictions but it's not so relevant to the 2nd Amendment.
I can't even speculate intelligently about what balancing control SCOTUS would come up with to evaluate the reasonableness of 2nd Amendment 'time, place and manner' restrictions. Maybe based on property rights (where the government can impose restrictions on it's own property)? No, that's more analogous to the 'limited public forum' analysis.
Honestly, I can't come up with anything about carry restrictions, though I can see lots of reasonable 'time, place and manner' restrictions about use (such as no shooting within X feet of residential buildings).
Nuts. Missed a close command for the italics. That should have said that "Viewpoint-neutrality is THE important control ..."
Can we PLEASE have an edit button?!?
This falls in line with what the 9th circuit ruled in 2016. "Carry" is a right but the manner in which you carry can be regulated. For example, concealed carry could be regulated and even banned if open carry were allowed and vice versa. But you cannot ban or restrict both.
Gozer the Gozarian, that was the holding of two judges. And it was a holding that the two judges invented out of thin air. The opinion conflicted with that of the US Supreme Court and with every Federal and State court that had preceded its opinion in the history of the United States.
The two-judge majority opinion in Peruta v. San Diego was appropriately vacated and can not be cited in any Federal court in the 9th circuit, not as a precedent and not for its "persuasive value."
your a liar. The Billof Rights does not create a right. It FORBIDS Govt from infringing upon the right
Learn to read. No one in this thread claimed that the right was "created". We all start from the position that the right exists (regardless of where it comes from). We are debating whether that right can be reasonably constrained under SCOTUS precedent (with the vitally important qualifier that what counts as "reasonable" is a matter of great debate).
Agammamon, according to your logic, "Killing someone in lawful self-defense is a right therefore murder is a right."
I hope there are at least five justices on the Supreme Court who aren't morons.
"Agammamon, according to your logic, "Killing someone in lawful self-defense is a right therefore murder is a right.""
If you're referring to this:
"Carry is a right. If carrying is a right then carrying concealed is a right."
You're pulling it out of your ass.
"Putting aside for the moment that concealed carry is not a right unless, like abortion and gay marriage, the Supreme Court invents one"
Try reading the Ninth Amendment.
Turn on your sarc meter.
Is “sarc meter” the vernacular for a breathalyzer?
Is Matthew sarc?
"Open Carry can be banned in favor of concealed carry"
It's not unreasonable for a city or state to require concealed carry vs open carry, so long as they allow some form of carry.
The simple fact is that in Texas, where both concealed and open carry have been legal for years, I have never seen open carry. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but I think that would speak to requiring a weapon to be concealed being not an undue burden.
It's not unreasonable for a city or state to require concealed carry vs open carry, so long as they allow some form of carry.
Not with you on that one. Whether someone chooses to carry open or concealed is nobody else's business.
-jcr
The Supreme Court seemed ready to expand Second Amendment rights after hearing arguments for over two hours and expressing skepticism about a New York law that restricts individuals from carrying concealed handguns outside the home for self-defense.
Chief Justice John Roberts at one point pressed New York's solicitor general about the breadth of the law that requires an individual to show "proper cause" before obtaining such a license in locations typically open to the general public, even in rural areas.
It's also informative that even if someone DID have a specific threat directed at them, they'd never get a carry permit approved in time to defend themselves.
It's also informative that even if someone DID have a specific threat directed at them, they'd never get a carry permit approved
in time to defend themselves.Fixed that for you. Go to the cops with a threat against you life and more than likely they'll laugh at you and tell you you deserve it.
Just because you're a known drunk doesn't mean the rest of us have pissed our lives and public reputations away.
Amy Coney Barrett seemed open the the possibility of laws restricting gun carry in certain places and situations. She said "Times Square during New Years Eve" might be an appropriate place to restrict guns.
Um.. I'm glad she thinks there are some situations where gun laws apply. 2nd amendment absolutists think concealed handgun carry or open carry of semi-automatic rifles in Times Square on New Years Eve are necessary to defend law-abiding citizens against drunk foreign tourists.
The question is not whether gun laws do apply but whether they are allowed to apply under the Constitution. To directly address your strawman, the statistics are quite clear that concealed carry licensees are more law-abiding and less of a risk even in Times Square on New Year's Eve than the armed police who are stationed there. It doesn't take a 2nd amendment "absolutist" to note that your favored gun control laws are ineffective at achieving their alleged goals and are often observably counter-productive to those goals.
She said "Times Square during New Years Eve" might be an appropriate place to restrict guns.
Which is bloody stupid, frankly. When someone flips out and tries to perpetrate a mass shooting, you need ARMED response as soon as possible. The reason that the palestinian hamassholes switched from trying to shoot up crowds to their amateur rocketry is because they were routinely dispatched within seconds of initiating an attack.
The restriction she proposes will only disarm law-abiding people.
-jcr
After what dems in blue areas did in 2020, I will never support any restrictions on the 2nd amendment for the rest of my life. Repeal any and all gun control measures. When the leftist scum will cheer your neighborhood burning down, and the political leaders will tell the police to back down and not protect you, then you have no argument for any gun control ("hur dur the police are here to protect you, why do you need a gun?!?)
archive.is/QxXjH
Look, you just don't get it, do you? There's a public health pandemic going on right now, now is not the time to be quibbling over minor details like whether or not we have a Constitution! Thousands of little children are dying every day and you want to block government officials from doing whatever it takes to save the lives of these poor, innocent children? Oh, I know, we all know, why this is - it's because they're little black and brown children. You evil racist bastards! You just want to kill little black and brown children, don't you?
No, thousands of children are not dying every day. The US has less than 1000 total pandemic deaths in the under 18 age group going all the way back to the beginning of the Pandemic two years ago.
Again.
Matt, it appears that your sarcasm detector is in need of calibration today.
That was actually a pretty decent parody. Are you a graduate of the OBL School of Creative Sarcasm? If so he will likely hire you to work in his duck factory.
Issue a penaltax on NY of $100B/day until they comply with 2A. The problem will be solved quickly. And then not repeated.
Not seeing how that would solve anything.
1. The tax won't be paid by the police slow-rolling the approval process.
2. The tax won't be paid by the legislature and/or bureaucrats who wrote those unconstitutional rules.
3. The tax will be passed on to the residents/constituents of NY - the same people already being victimized by these abusive rules.
4. Even if you were targeting the right people, the debt would be uncollectible. They are already teetering on bankruptcy. This would just give them the excuse to write off even more debt.
The only stimulus these fuckers will respond too is not being re-elected, and they seem to have found a way to “work around” that in blue state shit holes like NY and CA.
It'd be interesting to see a list of who does get a carry permit in New York, compared with political cronies and contributors.
Criminals in NY also carry concealed.
Well that is just expected. What they don't want is law abiding deplorables, hicks, and hayseeds carrying. Or anyone who believes in their person freedom over a collective good.
Because it is about moral virtue; and to have a good sense of having "done what is right" you must impose rules on those who have to follow t hem. Trying to make criminals behave is laughable, and besides, it most likely targets a victim class.
The message of gun control.
We will.mot protect you, and we will not let you protect yourself.
The only way to "comply with constitutional constraints" is to never "stop and frisk". It's an unconstitutional tactic from the word go.
Yeah, I don't know how anyone can pretend that isn't a search.
It's laughable how the people who tell me I shouldn't own a gun and I should trust the police instead are the same people who...don't trust the police.
Yeah, I think those people fall into three categories:
1 Policymakers and other rich people with private security
2. Sheltered, stupid Democrats who never personally encounter crime and know that the police will always come to rescue them because they're special and white
3. Criminals
Usually checking all three boxes.
no. its the police behind it.
No surprise. Those are the same people who declared the 2016 election illegitimate and made a virtue (and industry) of Resist! Now they say those same tactics are sedition.
Is it true that they don't trust the police?
I'd say a lot of the gun-control-favoring population still more or less trusts police. But then of course there is the whole "abolish the police" thing. But I bet even most of those people would call the cops if they were the victim of a crime. Or thought they could rat out a nasty right-winger.
WhaI want to know is, how did Clement keep a a straight face when he said, your 2nd Amendment rights were 'a privilege'? Did he wink?
Roll the tapes, you'll see he had his fingers crossed; or something.
The fact, and it is a FACT, that The USSC has for so many years, stood by,
allowing the travesty that is New York’s “system” to run rampant, as they so obviously have, is in my view the most serious of indictments possible. What they end up doing with the current case remains to be seen. Given the cour5s current makeup, there might be room for hope.
Denver CO is ( or was) in deliberate violation of COs Pre-Emption law with their AWB.
Well, ya voted for 'em. Did you expect they wouldn't be Democrats?
D or R.
Analogy. Dip both ends of a stick in shit. Throw it in the air. Try to keep your hands clean while catching it.
Anology:
Dip one end in shit and throw the stick in the air, proceed.
Example of infantile, un-critical thinking:
Both Sides.
Dems say gun control is you having no guns and the gov't keeping them all.
Reps say gun control is hitting where you aim.
Which dictionary?
The Government will take care of you.
Just ask the Indians.
I'm from the UK. I got to tell you, all this looks really *weird* from over here. So here are some practical everyday facts from a country where the 2nd Amendment doesn't exist.
Over here guns are basically banned for most people. You can get a license for hunting weapons (typically bolt-action rifles and double-barrel shotguns) if you hunt, or target pistols if you are a competition shooter, but only by passing stringent background checks. Walking around town with a gun in a holster will attract the attention of a police Armed Response Unit. "Self protection" is not considered a justification for having a gun license.
Meanwhile police don't normally go armed either. There are exceptions for security in specific high-threat areas, like around Parliament. Some police cars carry a pair of pistols in a locked safe in the boot, which can only be opened if there is probable cause to believe a criminal is armed. Those are the Armed Response Units I mentioned above. They have special training; most police officers are not taught how to shoot. There are also specialist units with sniper rifles who do planned operations to arrest armed criminals. But 99% of the time the policeman who knocks on your door, or even the ones who break it down with a search warrant, are not carrying guns because they are not concerned about being shot at.
Likewise, very few criminals have guns either. Knife crime is a problem in some inner-city areas, but not gun crime. Any sensible criminal looks at the penalties for carrying a gun while committing a crime and comes to the conclusion that they are better off without the gun. "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" is a lie.
Dumb criminals do occasionally get guns because they think having one makes dem da Man, but there is no point having a gun unless people know you have it, and once the police get to hear about it they come after the perp with more and bigger guns. Gun crime is rare here, so the police can afford to take individual cases seriously. For perspective, a typical sentence for a repeat burglar (home invader) is around 18 months. If the burglar merely had a gun on them that would be 10 years, and if they took it out and threatened someone it would be more like 20. Burglars here just don't carry guns. Or knives, for the same reason.
Because the police don't have guns they find it very difficult to kill suspects. Allegations of unjustified tasing are not uncommon, but being repeatedly tased is a lot less dangerous than being repeatedly shot. The narrative that "I thought he was reaching for a gun so I shot him" doesn't exist here.
We are still a democracy. The population may be disarmed, but we have free and fair elections, a free press, freedom of religion, property rights, and all the other trappings of democracy. The Economist Intelligence Unit actually rates the UK as *more democratic* than the USA. Guns are not necessary to maintain democracy and freedom.
stop capitalizing race labels...how absurd. and if you want rights and freedoms don't live in a "liberal" state...which are the furthest thing from liberal I've ever seen
keep it up for more information like this.
Thanks for sharing valuable information
keep it up for more information like this.