US Supreme Court invalidates NY restriction on gun licenses

Today the United States Supreme Court ruled that New York state may not require its citizens to show just cause in order to obtain a permit to carry a firearm. Such a law is often referred to as a “may issue” law, meaning that the state may issue the permit upon a showing of just cause that the citizen needs a firearm. This is in contrast to “shall issue” states like Pennsylvania that require the permit to be issued absent a valid reason to deny it. Since Pennsylvania is a “shall issue” state, at first glance, one would expect this ruling to have little impact on Pennsylvania firearms laws.

There are some laws in Pennsylvania that could fall as a result of today’s ruling. Chief among them is Philadelphia’s ban on openly carrying a firearm without a license. In the rest of Pennsylvania citizens only need a permit to carry a concealed firearm on their person, or anywhere in a vehicle. But if the Second Amendment gives a citizen a substantially unfettered right to carry a firearm, it probably gives the person that right to carry it openly without a license. If so, then the Philadelphia restriction on open carry without a license will be found to be unconstitutional. We have represented many people arrested for this crime over the years, so it would be a big deal if this defense pans out.

Another area of law that may be impacted is the 45 day period that the sheriff has to approve or deny a concealed carry permit. If there is a right to carry a firearm such that the sheriff cannot require good cause to issue the permit, it may also be unconstitutional to make a person wait up to 45 days before being able to exercise that right.

Finally, one area that is long overdue for attack federally, is the requirement that anyone who owns firearms and wants to shoot them must pay the government $200 and wait anywhere from several months to a year if he wants to buy a suppressor to protect his hearing. Suppressors do not make a gun silent, like you see in a Hollywood movie. Instead, they merely take the “crack” out of a shot that would damage hearing. Most suppressed gunshots are still incredibly loud. So by making them difficult to get and levying an excessive tax on them, the government is not protecting the public, but instead contributing to hearing loss among those who choose to exercise their second amendment rights. Do you agree or disagree? Please let us know in the comments.