Thanks to a recent court case revoking the “good cause” provision of D.C.’s concealed carry permitting process, Hell’s getting frosty. The resolutely, obstinately, relentlessly anti-gun New York Post has posted an editorial by Seth Lipsky that calls for the liberalization, make that reform of New York’s City’s “may issue” concealed carry [non]licensing procedure. The headline – DC loss for gun control puts New York City’s laws at risk – is a head fake worthy of Marshawn Lynch. Check this out . . .
It’s not yet clear whether DC and its police chief, Cathy Lanier, are going to appeal the district court ruling [by US District Judge Frederick J. Scullin]. It is clear, though, that the case will echo in New York and other cities that require a showing of need to carry a pistol . . .
If Scullin’s judgment were imposed on New York — either by a higher court or Congress — it would render unenforceable the city’s demand that permit applicants show a good reason (usually a clear need for self-defense) before getting approved.
It’s a big deal because the “good reason” hurdle is being used by municipalities to evade the Bill of Rights. What would be the reaction were Americans required to show “good reason” before they were allowed to pray in public?
Or before they were allowed to speak on a street corner? Or before they were allowed to publish or read newspapers? Or, for that matter, to demand to see a search warrant. Or to remain silent when arrested.
All are protected under the Bill of Rights. No questions asked.
How ’bout them [big] apples? OK, sure, this isn’t an editorial from the Post’s editorial board. But they printed it, a decision I’m filing under The Age of Miracles Has Not Passed. Equally astounding, the editorial ends without the usual anti-pistol prevarication. It ends, in fact, with a bang.
The most progressive state is one of the most regressive when it comes to the Second Amendment. And it’s a far cry from New York’s roots; the state ratified the Constitution only on the condition that it would protect the right to bear arms. It carefully marked that condition in a famous statement put out in Poughkeepsie at the time the Constitution was ratified.
It asserted that the “people have the right to keep and bear arms.” It said nothing about them having to show good reason.
And for good reason. Anyway, I need a cigar to celebrate this crack in the wall of Big City gun control. That’s my story and I’m sticking to it.