BY JEFF CHUDZINSKI
North Country This Week

The United States Supreme Court on Thursday, June 23 struck down New York’s gun law that required a citizen to demonstrate proper cause when applying for a concealed carry permit.

The justices’ 6-3 ruling, which strikes down a law that has been on the books since 1913, will have far reaching effects across the nation, according to St. Lawrence County Attorney Stephen Button.

“One aspect of the ruling that has a wide ranging impact is the fact that 12 other states also required a concealed carry applicant to demonstrate proper cause, as well. With this ruling, all of them have been struck,” Button said.

Button also commented on the reaction from county officials, saying the county was pleased with the ruling as it demonstrated what was already known and was consistent with the amicus brief submitted in support of NYSRPA v. Bruen last October.

The justices also ruled on a wider scope than some expected, directly addressing a key argument activists have made for the last three decades.

“The language in the ruling indicates the Second Amendment is not to create restrictions and limitations. This is an enunciation of Heller and encompasses not only handguns, but also semi-automatic rifles, high capacity magazines and even potentially body armor,” Button said.

Demonstration of proper cause

The one thing New Yorkers can expect to change quickly is the licensing requirements for a concealed carry license, with residents no longer being required to demonstrate proper cause.

“Shall issue states had essentially turned the issue on end and thrust upon the individual the responsibility to demonstrate proper cause of why they should have a concealed carry license, when in actuality this ruling now requires the governments to demonstrate a reason to not issue a license,” Button said.

Critics on both sides of the argument have long sparred over the requirement of proper cause, with many gun advocates claiming it was an unconstitutional restriction.

“The new ruling now says that the process is in violation of an individual’s constitutional rights. Essentially, an individual had to apply for an enhanced right previously,” Button said.

Former St. Lawrence County Justice Jerome Richards issued concealed carry permits for over a decade with sporting restrictions, meaning individuals could only take a handgun out of the home for hunting and other sporting purposes.

A local law was passed by county legislators in 2015 in opposition of the restrictions placed on licenses, in hopes of spurring a legal argument similar to NYSRPA v. Bruen, Button said.

“That local law has been validated by this ruling,” Button commented.

Effects on SAFE Act and new gun laws

According to Button, the enunciation of Heller is a key component that could be potentially used in future legal arguments against the SAFE Act and the slate of 10 new gun laws recently passed.

Button said the 1913 law that was recently struck was the foundation of the SAFE Act.

“The language that was very important to the SAFE Act came from the proper cause law. This now calls into question not only the new laws recently passed but the SAFE Act as well,” he said.

Button said he expects challenges to both the SAFE Act and the new laws in the coming months.

“The restrictions on semi-automatic rifles, as well as high capacity magazines will now be up for debate with the ruling. The justices ruled that a magazine is ancillary to a firearm, therefore a restriction is potentially unconstitutional in that case,” Button said.

Similar laws have been debated, and struck in some cases, in other states including Connecticut, Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, California and Washington.

The new laws, which include a license to purchase a semi-automatic rifle, a ban on body armor and a wide range of new requirements for gun dealers, will take effect 90 days after the signing.

Restrictions still possible

Though the justices ruled on a wider scope than some expected, some of the conservative justices did acknowledge that limitations could still be placed on where firearms could be carried.

“The justices did not say that some restrictions were unconstitutional. Primarily where a firearm can be carried, such as schools, government buildings and some public places,” Button said.

During oral arguments heard last November, Justice Kavanaugh asked about restricting the legal carry of firearms in certain parts of the state or in cities, asking how far would one have to travel on Interstate 87 before it would once again be legal to possess a concealed firearm, as an example.

Button also said the justices’ ruling also did not preclude a state from having a permitting process to own certain firearms as well.

“There is nothing that would stop a state from issuing a permitting process but this certainly changes how a permit is fundamentally issued,” Button said.

Reaction from state and federal officials

Congresswoman Elise Stefanik issued a press release within minutes of the announcement, saying “Today’s Supreme Court ruling upholds the Constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms and correctly declares New York’s shameful attempt to shred Second Amendment rights of New Yorkers unconstitutional.”

However New York State Attorney General Letita James scolded the justices, saying “Today’s decision by the Supreme Court to strike down New York’s proper cause requirement to carry a concealed weapon is incredibly disappointing. For more than a century, this law has protected New Yorkers from harm by ensuring that there are reasonable and appropriate regulations for guns in public spaces.”

“In the days to come, my office will be taking action to address the potential harm that this ruling may cause, and we will continue to defend the constitutionality of our state’s laws, as we’ve always done,” James said.

Governor Kathy Hochul, who recently signed 10 new gun bills into law, called the Supreme Court ruling “frightful in its scope” and claimed the decision will “place millions of New Yorkers in harm’s way.”

Hochul has said she will call state lawmakers back into session to pass new legislation in response to the decision.