The new ruling added to the growing list of cases nationwide in which judges correctly determined that governments greatly overstepped their authority in defying the court.
The fact that New York Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen originated in the Empire State was no excuse for the hand wringing and foot stomping lawmakers engaged in. It was the first major decision on gun control handed down by the court in over a decade.
There was no escaping that the high court emphatically ruled that the city’s method of conducting business with lawful gun owners violated the Constitution.
But lawmakers made the conscious decision to simply ignore the Supreme Court and approve a new set of laws as egregious as the originals.
This time around, New York City leaders roped off huge areas of the metropolis as “sensitive places” where guns were not allowed. Even for permit holders.
The right was also bestowed on officials to turn down carry permit applications if the citizen was “not of good moral character.”
Is this 1840?
The dilemma addressed by justices in 2022 was the “may issue” provisions of the law. Authorities reserved the right for any nebulous reason to deny carry permits, and even the most law-abiding citizen was forced to show a specific “need” to be considered.
As if self-defense in the nation’s largest city was not need enough.
That all changed this week when U.S. District Court Judge John P. Cronan ruled against the draconian steps taken by city leaders despite Bruen. His decision cited the Constitution’s Second and Fourteenth Amendments.
He correctly noted that the Big Apple’s Challenged Firearms Licensing Provisions were in fact almost identical to the “may issue” laws Bruen struck down.
Under the new laws, Cronan wrote, a city official could determine “not to issue a permit or license for a firearm based on that official’s discretionary assessment of the applicant’s ‘good moral character’ and the determination of a vaguely defined presence of ‘good cause.’”
Indeed, Bruen directly addressed these same stipulations.
The judge ruled that like the previous “proper cause” mandate, the new standards allowed the rejection of a firearms license based on “good moral character” or “good cause,” leading to the same result.
Cronan said the outcome “has the effect of prevent[ing] law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms.”
This came as no surprise to defenders of gun rights. New York City merely reworded the old law without even bothering to disguise the blatant contempt they held for the high court’s decision. No one, certainly not Judge Cronan, was deceived by the attempt.
He acknowledged that states and municipalities have the authority to regulate issuance of firearm licenses and permits to an extent.
However, the laws in question “fail to pass constitutional muster because of the magnitude of discretion afforded to City officials in denying an individual their constitutional right to keep and bear arms.”
The case before the court this week centered on Joseph Srour. He was denied a permit to have rifles and shotguns in his home by city officials who cited prior arrests, a bad driving record and supposed false statements on applications.
Cronan’s ruling should be a clear signal to city and state leaders that the judicial system will not look favorably on flagrant attempts to flout the law. The Supreme Court is the final arbiter, and its decisions must be upheld until Congress decides to change course.
That’s the American system in action.
