The road ahead for gun laws in New York State

In 2013 I applied for, and received, a New York State concealed carry pistol permit under the state’s century-old “proper cause” licensing law — the law just thrown out by the Supreme Court. As the twopage application specifies, applicants needed to submit two passport photos, get fingerprinted, include the names of four character references who then complete a three-page questionnaire about the applicant, and undergo an extensive background check — one more thorough and time-consuming than the instant federal Brady Law background check (which generally takes only a few minutes) for those seeking to buy a handgun.

The application specified three types of carry licenses: a premises license to keep a gun at home, one related to gun-carrying employment (such as security guard or bank messenger), and one for concealed carry in public. Beyond this, the application asks for the person’s reason for wanting a permit. In my case, once my paperwork was approved, I was required to complete a pistol permit safety course within a year that consisted of 10 class hours of instruction culminating in an exam plus live fire at a shooting range.

All this has now been thrown into a cocked hat thanks to the court’s decision. The court’s 6-3 majority could have ruled narrowly, focusing on the discretionary nature of the state law and the fact that different counties, such as the five boroughs of New York City, apply stricter standards for granting licenses. Instead, it went far beyond that, ruling for the first time in history that the Second Amendment’s “right to bear arms” now extends to a right of civilians to carry handguns for personal self-protection outside of the home. Justice Clarence Thomas’s decision added, however, that states “may continue to require licenses for carrying handguns for self-defense,” but that such licenses must be of the “shall issue” variety currently found in 17 states, meaning that the license must be granted unless the applicant falls into one of the categories barred from gun ownership, such as felons and those judged mentally incompetent. Discretionary “may issue” licensing like New York’s, and those of a handful of other states, are out.

To be clear, the ruling did not immediately eliminate the New York law; the decision remanded the case to the lower court for the law’s final disposition in the light of the high court’s ruling. State lawmakers are wasting no time redrafting the law in line with the court’s ruling. But what does this mean for civilians carrying guns, and what might future regulations look like?

First, as the court said, a system of permitting is still allowable. Obviously, the state can no longer exercise license-granting discretion based on the applicant’s reason for wanting one. On the other hand, some version of its more extensive and thorough background check process may pass muster. When I applied, my information was checked against the local county clerk’s office, the office of mental health, the Probation Department, the district attorney’s office, the state Department of Criminal Justice, and the FBI’s Criminal History Record information databases. This detailed check process undoubtedly provides useful information to weed out those who shouldn’t carry guns.

The majority decision also said that gun-carrying may still be barred in “sensitive places” like schools and government buildings, although the court rejected the idea that, say, the entire island of Manhattan could be declared a sensitive place from which gun carrying could be barred. Still, the decision allows fairly wide latitude for such a designation, possibly for places like ballparks, concerts and public transportation, an obviously justifiable step toward public safety.

Stricter and uniform gun safety training might be enhanced. After obtaining my license and completing my gun safety course, I was surprised to discover that no uniform state training standard exists. As of 2021, according to an informal tabulation by the Cortland county clerk’s office, at least 10 counties impose no training requirement, and counties vary as well as to whether training includes live fire. These standards could be made uniform by Albany lawmakers, incorporating minimum length and content stipulations.

Another possible policy consideration would be to require firearm liability insurance, which New York and California are considering. According to University of California, Davis law professor Aaron Tang, such measures could “ensure that victims of gun violence can recover for their losses and provide financial incentives for responsible arms carrying.”

I have argued elsewhere that Thomas’ history-based ruling gets its history wrong. In our country’s first 300 years nearly every state restricted concealed gun carry, and two-thirds barred gun display or brandishing. Nevertheless, states like New York now must consider how best to adapt their gun policies under this new ruling. Act smartly and quickly.

Spitzer is distinguished service professor emeritus of political science at SUNY Cortland and the author of six books on gun policy, including “The Gun Dilemma,” to be published this fall.