Shutterstock

On Nov. 21, the Firearms Policy Committee (FPC) filed a lawsuit against the State of New York, challenging the state’s ban on carrying firearms for residents of other states.

In Shaffer v. Quattrone, the plaintiffs argue that the carry ban for lawful nonresidents, which restricts their constitutional right to carry within state boundaries, violates their Second Amendment-protected right to keep and bear arms. Plaintiffs in the case are individual FPC members Matthew Shaffer, Ralph Flynn, Peter Robbins and Charles Pompey, and the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York will hear the case.

FPC President Brandon Combs stated in a news release announcing the action, “We will continue to teach Governor Hochul that the right to keep and bear arms doesn’t end at New York’s borders. We look forward to ending New York’s immoral ban on carry by non-residents and allowing millions of peaceable people to exercise their rights as they visit the Empire State.”

In the complaint, FPC lawyers stated: “As a result of the ban, most non-residents who visit New York, whether occasionally or regularly, are ineligible to apply for any New York State firearms license, and so are prohibited from carrying or possessing loaded, operable firearms and semi-automatic rifles in New York. Thus, the Individual Plaintiffs, other similarly situated FPC members, and many other non-residents are barred from lawfully possessing or carrying a firearm in public for self-defense when they visit New York.”

In the complaint, FPC also argued that the Second Amendment is the only constitutional right that government entities believe they can restrict to within state borders.

“Citizens do not lose protection of their rights under the First Amendment’s speech or religion clauses when they cross state lines,” the complaint stated. “Nor do they lose their protections under the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures. Likewise, they do not surrender their Second Amendment protected rights when they travel outside their home state.:

In the end, FPC is asking the court to rule that the law violates the U.S. Constitution and halt its enforcement.

“In sum, New York’s Non-Resident Ban violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, as well as Article IV of the same—the Privileges and Immunities clause,” the complaint stated. “This Court should enter a judgment that declares the Ban unconstitutional and enjoins Defendants from rejecting firearms license applications from non-residents whose applications are otherwise proper.”

24 COMMENTS

  1. When Gun Control isn’t fixated on Blacks, Indians, Catholics it’s fixated on something else and this time the targeted attribute is non-resident. Yepper if you do not fit the mold you are sht out of luck all because bigotry is an attribute of Gun Control.

    • If you don’t live in NY don’t go there or buy from the state(or NYC). Just like ILL annoy. A coupla daze ago they had a holiday parade in downtown Chiraq. At night. 700000 dummies attended. And folks got shot who WEREN’T gangbangers. DUH🙄😧

      • The problem is NY blocks New England off from the rest of the country and FOPA has proven insufficient for realistic encounters.

        • Yeah, always wanted to visit Maine, but youse guys got it pinched off. WTH? Can’t go around north, because Canuckistan is worse. Can’t go around south, because my little aluminium 14 footer is not a big water boat.

          Actually, we did gird our loins for a weekend at Letchworth in July 2023 (recommended by one of our customers, who is from Nunda). That is worth seeing, EDC or not. We may return some time to hike the east rim.

          Keep plugging away, darkest before dawn and all that.👍

  2. The times I’ve been to NY I just did what I always do. Once I drove there. I carried a 1911 IWB. A Galil and 4 spare mags behind the seat. A couple of hunting rifles and a shotgun for grouse. The other times I took Amtrak. There was no security so I just dropped a J frame in my pocket and headed out.

    • Gadsden Flag,

      I understand your mindset. It seems reasonable that you can carry discretely, no one (including New York law enforcement) will ever know, and you thus face no legal jeopardy. If you do have to use your handgun for self-defense, hopefully you can slip away without anyone being able to identify you which means law enforcement will never come looking for you. By the way that last bit is a very likely outcome as long as you do not identify yourself on scene and no witnesses see you get into your car and hence do not see your license plate.

      Allow me to explain very real risks which you probably did not consider. If you suffer a medical emergency which renders you non-ambulatory, responding emergency medical services will find your concealed handgun at which point you are screwed. If you are in an automobile crash, law enforcement will likely find your concealed handgun (or other firearms in your vehicle) at which point you are screwed. Needless to say, medical emergencies and automobile crashes are fairly common. There are other less-common events which would lead to the same result as well.

      I mention the above to underscore the fact that there is considerable overall risk of possessing a firearm for righteous purposes in states like New York. Of course only you can decide what level of risk you are willing to accept, which requires recognizing the TOTAL risk involved.

      • Uncommon, I understand your point and took all of the scenarios you described into my decision. After all, I was that first responder at the crash , or the medical emergency, etc. Now I’m covered by H.B. 218 so they can kiss my ass.

        • Gadsden Flag,

          Now I’m covered by H.B. 218 so they can kiss my ass.

          (snicker)

          On a more sad note, the Second Amendment should cover all of us. Alas the world is not always as it should be.

          Fun question: can we sue to force all states to allow everyone to be armed under H.R. 218 (Law Enforcement Officer Safety Act) thanks to the “equal protection” clause of the U.S. Constitution?

          • Uncommon, I agree that every U.S. citizen should be able to carry a firearm anywhere in the United States of America. Reciprocity is the first step in that direction. I read that Trump supports it. Let’s see. I know many consider 218 to be a carve out. I’ve had the conversation with friends of mine face to face. I always asked, “If you qualified, would you take advantage of 218? To a man they answered with some variation of, “Well yeah, but…”

          • Gadsden Flag,

            I don’t begrudge you in the slightest that you get a carve-out as a retired law enforcement officer. I would certainly take full advantage of it as well.

            Look on the plus side, though, if we finally get all states to honor the Second Amendment: you won’t have to go through the hassle of qualifying every year to maintain your L.E.O.S.A. status!

            • uncommon, I don’t mind shooting, no matter the reason. I remember getting ready to go to the range to run qualification. I was dressed in soft clothes, but was putting on my duty belt. My daughter, four or five at the time, asked what I was doing. I said, “I’m going to the range. I’m being paid to shoot free ammunition for the next three days. My life is perfect.”

        • There shouldn’t be a super citizen exception just because the government employs the person. Or did at one time.
          Good citizens, especially those with security clearances, sbould be able to apply for at least a temporary permit for travel or visits.
          But that would require common sense, respect for rights, and for the left to give ground in a state they control.

    • I remember pointing out the Amtrak stations in Philly and Wilmington had nothing for security over a decade ago and would be a prime method for smuggling high value small sized contraband in a nondescript bag. I can’t imagine too much changed. As to driving through just watch your speed on rt 9 (any of them) and avoid the teconic parkway. Not so much for police presence just high concentration of bad driving related accidents.

  3. Most non POTG in this country have absolutely no clue how legally dangerous it is to travel with firearms amongst the states. IMHO red states should write laws banning out of state plates and DLs and start arresting all out of state drivers from blue states as soon as they cross the border. Maybe then they will get it.

  4. Here’s my email to the lawyer running this case:

    Hi Mr. Rotsko,

    I write as a supporter, as you’ll see. I think this case can be turned into something significant. If it’s not changed it’ll likely be declared moot.

    GOA launched a similar case with Karl Higbee as lead plaintiff. NY folded like a wet noodle:

    https://www.gunowners.org/wp-content/uploads/Emergency-Gun-License-Rules-8.8.24.pdf

    The NY State AG is backing this memo despite it being in violation of NY Penal Law 400 under the “who can apply” bit. And since the NYC carry permit is (for now) the only NY permit good statewide, if I as an Alabama resident wanted a NY carry permit, NYC is the one to get.

    Note the reference to Rahimi. Can you spot what that’s about? The Rahimi decision goes on for three pages right at the start about how violently bonkers Mr. Rahimi is, and concluded that a state can disarm somebody who poses this level of threat. The subtext is that your guy Shaffer from PA cannot be disarmed just for being from PA.

    NY AG realized this. You um…missed it.

    But you missed something much bigger, as did the lawyers on both sides of the GOA/Higbee case.

    Go back to Bruen, at footnote 9. Thomas listed abuses that the courts won’t tolerate even under a “shall issue” permit system as Bruen mandates.

    First abuse banned is subjective standards. To show he’s serious he cited to the 1969 decision in Shuttlesworth v Birmingham (can’t have subjective standards if a permit is needed for a basic civil right).

    But then he says “no excessive delays for permit access and no exorbitant fees” (paraphrase).

    In order to get NATIONAL carry rights, your PA plaintiffs would need 19 permits – one from PA, one from DC, one from 17 out of the 20 states that still care about permits. (Three states recognize the PA permit.)

    Total cost would be close to $12k just for the permits and in most cases training *in each jurisdiction*. Your beleaguered multi-applicant would need to make multiple trips to each state in most cases, so with travel and hotel expenses we’re waaaaaay past $20k. No telling how long it would take. And we still haven’t gotten to Puerto Rico, Guam, US Virgin Islands (which I can’t visit due to getting married in 2013…).

    This utterly and completely detonates the Bruen footnote 9 limitations on excessive delays and exorbitant fees. Blows it sky high on 100lbs of tannerite.

    The only constitutional way forward is via the same universal reciprocity that we see in driver’s licenses and vehicle registration documents. Reciprocity over there did not happen through the full faith and credit clause by the way, it happened by an interstate compact out of sheer necessity.

    If the various heavy gun control states like New York had read over Bruen carefully when it first came out and seen this defacto requirement in footnote 9, they could have formed an interstate carry compact that would have had people good to go for national carry as long as they had a permit from a state with a 16-hour training program. So at most your plaintiffs would have to get two permits total and they probably could have gotten away with that.

    Instead they’ve unconstitutionally put too many barriers on national carry and the courts need to force them to do universal reciprocity until a federal law passes creating an interstate carry permit with 16 hours of training to pacify states like New York, or the street gun control states get together on an interstate carry compact.

    Since the federal courts you are suing in cannot create either an interstate compact or federal law, the only thing they can do is enforce Bruen footnote 9. Because footnote 9 is tied to how states are to handle the mandates in the core decision forcing shall issue, footnote 9 is not dicta.

    One other thing. Bach v Pataki was completely killed off by the combination of Heller, McDonald and Bruen. It’s worth noting for the court in detail how dead as a doornail it is, and how it’s extinction brings Saenz v Roe back in full force.

    I’ve been involved in CCW legal reform going back to 1997 when I was first denied in California despite urgent need. I may not have a law degree but I know this area of law.

    Thank you for your kind attention,

    Jim Simpson

  5. “apply for any New York State firearms license” – WTH should/would I apply for something that is a violation of the 2nd? GTH NY state.

    • For me, I jump through the hoops to have a concealed carry license in my state due to classic risk management theory.

      Risk of not complying with my state’s concealed carry licensing law:
      — Arrest.
      — At least a day or two of jail time until I can post bail.
      — Several thousand dollars in initial attorney fees.
      — Several hundreds of thousands of dollars attorney fees fighting the constitutionality of my state’s requirement for a concealed carry license.
      — Years in prison if my lawsuit to overturn my state’s concealed carry licensing law fails.

      Risk of complying with my state’s concealed carry licensing law:
      — $150 for official training class (one time, good for life)
      — eight hours of time for that initial training class
      — $120 every five years to renew license
      — two hours reviewing law and renewing license every five years
      — $60 ammunition for target practice every five years

      Applying classic risk management theory, it is obvious that I am better off jumping through my state’s legal hoops to acquire and maintain my concealed carry license every five years.

      What really frosts me is that my state knows this and uses concealed carry licensing as just another justification to suck more money from residents.

  6. Another example where the State of New York doesn’t think the US constitution applies to them. Obviously, they learned nothing from the Buren decision! They soon will be taught another lesson and they won’t like it!

  7. Until it comes out of the POLITICIANS PERSONAL POCKET, the cost of any ‘lessons learned’ will have to born by the poor schmucks paying the taxes…

  8. A reminder that we see National Reciprocity introduced almost annually, and Im looking forward to it getting out of committee again. What we miss is gun rights organizations plastering the RINO’s faces in press releases when they are the ones who vote against it.

    Politics is local, quit reelecting the conspirators in our own ranks who prevent us from exercising our rights.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here