N.Y.'s Concealed Gun Licensing Scheme Is Upheld by Circuit

, New York Law Journal

   |2 Comments

The requirement in New York's handgun licensing scheme that a person have "proper cause" to get a license to carry a concealed handgun in public does not violate the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled yesterday.

This article has been archived, and is no longer available on this website.

View this content exclusively through LexisNexis® Here

Not a LexisNexis® Subscriber?

Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via lexis.com® and Nexis®. This includes content from The National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at customercare@alm.com

What's being said

  • Carmen

    If the NY ruling doesn't violate the second amendment, it sure does violate the "equal protection clause".

    What criminal has to abide by this law?
    Only citizens who want to protect themselves, must apply.

    I'd like to see a challenge based on the 4th.

  • Christopher J Hoffman

    Rest assured the fat lady has not yet sung. Would the Supreme Court dare say that the Second Amendment was codified to protect the right of indoor militias? Unlikely, even given its current makeup. Quite obviously, the use of firearms for whatever lawful purpose is primarily an outdoor activity.

    The government's interest in public safety cannot reasonably extend to licensed, screened, trained individuals whose actual safety record and lack of criminal behavior should earn the envy of the modern world.

    Indeed, if the crime rate of weapon permit holders could be magically superimposed on the rest of this country, we might mistakenly think we woke up in Switzerland, which has a microscopically low rate of violence and crime. Yet Swiss citizens typically store government issued machine guns and a caches of ammunition in their homes, and often transport them to and from firing ranges slung over their backs on bicycles. No one even blinks, let alone runs for cover.

    Nowhere in this case, nor in any similar lower court cases denying of the right to self-defense, has any meaningful analysis of the actual public safety risk been conducted. The idea that licensed, trained individuals, screened for prohibitive factors, present a prima facia threat to public safety has been left unchallenged. In the absence of such an inquiry, the foundation of such decisions is completely hollow.

    Indeed, the several credible studies in existence indicate that carry licensing schemes have a significant negative affect on crime rates, including gun crime, rape, and assault.

    In the worst-cases, licensed gun-toters had no effect on crime rates one way or the other.

    However counter-intuitive the notion that armed, law-abiding citizen make us safer, it must be fully examined before any strong government interest in public safety can be credibly asserted.

    See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Kleck http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lott

Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Preparing comment abuse report for Article# 1202579515171

Thank you!

This article's comments will be reviewed.