New York City Mayor Eric Adams
New York City Mayor Eric Adams (AP Photo/John Minchillo)
Previous Post
Next Post

From the Second Amendment Foundation . . .

Based on the ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court striking down New York State’s unconstitutional “good cause” requirement for concealed carry permit applicants, the Second Amendment Foundation today filed a preliminary injunction motion seeking to enjoin the City of New York from further enforcement of its long-standing permit regulations.

Joining SAF in this legal action are the Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc. and five private citizens. The motion was filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Plaintiffs are represented by attorney David D. Jensen of Beacon, N.Y. In addition to the City of New York, Police Commissioner Dermot Shea is named as a defendant in his official capacity.

“In light of the Supreme Court’s ruling that New York State’s ‘good cause’ mandate is unconstitutional, we felt compelled to file this action because the city’s ‘proper cause’ requirement is just as bad if not worse,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “Two of our plaintiffs previously held carry licenses in New York City for decades, but in 2020, both were denied renewal on the grounds they lacked ‘proper cause’.”

Gottlieb said the perpetuation of this requirement in the aftermath of the high court’s ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen is an affront to the Constitution and an insult to the Court, not to mention the good citizens of New York City who should no longer need to demonstrate some special need in order to exercise a fundamental right.

“The City adopted this restrictive and completely arbitrary regulation more than a hundred years ago,” Gottlieb observed, “and we should not have to drag the city kicking and screaming into the 21st Century, and into compliance with the Second Amendment and the recent Supreme Court ruling.

“After all,” he noted, “within 24 hours of the high court ruling, both New Jersey and California, which have similar requirements to the New York ‘good cause’ restriction, issued directives to law enforcement to stop enforcing those provisions. If states can immediately comply with the Supreme Court, New York City has absolutely no excuse for ignoring the Bruen ruling. We promised to take action if we found local governments refusing to comply with the court’s decision. We meant it.”

Previous Post
Next Post


    • CA no doubt complied quickly because Sacramento doesn’t want to return open carry to us (even though it was the law of the land for 162 years prior to Gov. Brown nixing it). Our overlords would prefer to not only keep gunns out of sight via concealed carry, but issuing permits means they can keep records on even more gunn owners than before. In neighboring Nevada, for example, your CCW is issued to you, and you may carry any legal gunn you wish. However, in California you must have a gunn registered with CADOJ, and you may only carry those (up to 3 max) you specifically declare.

      So sure…CA “complied” with Bruen. If we want to call it that…

      • Reagan signed the first prohibition on open carry in 1967, not Brown.
        See the Mulford Act.

        • I know what Reagan did in response to the Black Panthers, but he did not remove open carry from the entire State. Brown did.

        • to I Haz A Question
          I don’t like Ronald Reagan’s decision signing the Mulford act at all. But he would not ban the carrying guns in CA. Because he had personal experience about what it means to be attacked and not have a way to defend yourself.

          He intervened on a woman’s behalf who was being stalked. Someone who did he didn’t know. Who was walking home at night time. So he escorted this woman from work to her home as long as she needed help. He did this for weeks carrying a 38 revolver.

          I wouldn’t like it. But an unloaded gun on one side of your body, and on your other side is a loaded magazine or a speed loader. Ready to go when you need it. That is better than not having a gun at all while you are out and about in public.

          And the Democrats even took that away from the law-abiding people in the state of California.

  1. Didn’t we read where NY declared it was reviewing the SC decision? Trying to determine if the SC ruled properly?

    • It’s not like NY can just switch from tyranny to freedom, they at least will need to make the most oppressive freedom they can. Truthfully they probably just want to lock things up in litigation for years while they do their thing. Do they want to be dragged kicking and screaming? Yes, yes they do.

      • “Do they want to be dragged kicking and screaming? Yes, yes they do.”

        Defiance has its rewards.

      • I’ve now read the motion, and it’s a doozy.

        Plaintiffs are moving for not only a preliminary injunction, but consolidation of that with a trial on the merits. They also are making the section 1983 argument that the individual defendants have violated their civil rights, which is going to be interesting to see how they get around that unless they immediately issue the licenses.

        They are doing exactly what I hope other litigants will do. It’s like tagging your opponent on the chin and seeing that they’re stunned — immediately follow up with lots of body shots and they may well go down. And when NYC asks for more time, plaintiffs can point to the public statements of various NY pols about how they “disagree” with SCOTUS and apparently intend to try and frustrate enforcement. That’s never a good look to a judge.

        The other interesting aspect is that the judge is a PDT appointee, and is a real superstar (Harvard BA, London School of Economics MS, Yale JD, clerked for Pierre Leval on the Second Circuit and John Paul Stevens on SCOTUS, AUSA for SDNY, partner at Cleary Gotlieb). So while it’s not like drawing some of the federal district judges here in Texas I can think of, it’s not like they’re in front of some of Obama appointees I could name who have minimal legal skills beyond their fealty to leftist principles.

        This is definitely going to be interesting to watch.

      • NY would be well advised to enforce existing gun laws against criminals instead of letting them walk, and leave law abiding citizens alone.

    • Since when does the City of New York, or any other governmental entity, for that matter, get to determine if the SCOTUS has ruled correctly?

      • They don’t. But New York has a bit of an ego problem and wants to make it look like they know better.

      • Every Democrat in the nation has already determined that the SC is “illegitimate” because the 2A and the abortion rulings. Watch for an attempted court packing in the very near future.

      • “Since when does the City of New York, or any other governmental entity, for that matter, get to determine if the SCOTUS has ruled correctly”

        Apparently since they found the SC ruled against them. NYS/NYC are not “reviewing” the case to determine what must be done to comply, but to decide if the SC is legitimate anymore.

  2. They need to cease and desist until they prove it doesn’t infringe the 2nd amendment. They can’t.
    Stupid judge will most likely allow them to continue their bs while it goes through the process. For years.

  3. And tomorrow NYS legislators vote on a few things, like requiring 15-20 hours of training with live fire, increased background checks and limiting carry to very few places . Oh and a business would have to post a sign IF the allow CC ,which few would do .

    • I read today that California will adopt a similar measure, but I haven’t seen the text yet. The effect of this is to establish a presumption that ALL businesses open to the public are “sensitive places” unless the business specifically opts out by posting a sign. Since most will not, this will in effect make every business in every city a no carry zone–a direct challenge it would seem to Bruen’s expressly stating that NY could not declare the entire island of Manhattan a “sensitive place.” The difficulty of course is that businesses have the right to deny entry to persons carry concealed firearms, so attacking a measure that “affirms” this right will be a difficult endeavor.

      • Oh I’m in total agreement with you . I got both my Fla and Utah permits in one day of “ training “ or a half day each,which also included photos and filling out the forms . Just did my Penn permit , one page form ,$20 ,one picture and ten minutes time . Deputy said he’d put it in the mail as soon as he got it .

        For those wondering Penn blocks our way to Fla for the winter , and doesn’t honor my other permits .

        • PA used to honor my Utah license. The AG that stopped it went to prison for other crimes.

      • If you cannot ban folks based on gender, religion or race which would violate their civil rights how can you violate my civil rights by not allowing me to carry my permitted gun in your store?

        We either have these rights or not. You can ban firearms in your home. But a business open to the public?

        • Interesting. I remember when private businesses decided to form a private club. To allow smoking in their restaurants and bars. But then the government decided to ban this private property, private club arrangement. Perhaps there will be businesses, who will form private clubs, in order to ban the carry of weapons onto their property?

    • I’d expect many of those new requirements to be contested in new lawsuits and ultimately struck down per Bruen and Heller. It will take time, but I suspect NY will eventually be brough to heel, one way or another.

      Side thought: it would be hilarious if NY passes their law about businesses actively posting permission for CCW, and the vast majority of businesses go right ahead and do that.

  4. New York ALWAYS has to have a fire lit under their feet before they’ll move. That’s the way they are. They’ll move when they have to or want to not because they need to.

  5. 15-20 hours of training with live fire… anther unnecessary thing and expense.

    Although basic training is nice, it does not need 15-20 hours of live fire training. Its an unnecessary burdensome requirement and those who have been previously permitted without the requirement show such a requirement has no bearing on ability to go safely armed without such training.

    Although training is permitted under Bruen, required burdensome unnecessary live fire training it is not in the historical context requirement of Bruen.

    • Kick their azzes!!! Illinois tried this kind of BS and lost. IF you can’t carry places boycott ’em!!!

    • Ironically, in NY this would currently be illegal UNTIL you are granted your permit. NY does not allow you to TOUCH any handgun that is not registered to you and listed on your permit, meaning no live fire training until you already have the permit. There is an exception when working with an NRA instructor, so perhaps that will be the work around / choke point to prevent people from getting a permit in a timely way.

  6. A national divorce is now even more likely. Because the Democrats can’t stand not getting their way in the courts. The open defiance of a Supreme Court decision. Along with no one being arrested or prosecuted for failing to obey that Court decision. Will lead eventually to a national divorce.

    Once everyone realizes that Court decisions are not being enforced equally, or are not being enforced at all.

    The conservatives were usually obeying the courts. And if they were not, they were also willing to go to jail for their principles. That is not what the Democrats are going to do.

    • “A national divorce is now even more likely. ”

      We really should stop this sophomoric blather about “national divorce”. The logistical, monetary, financial and supply chain difficulties of even a single state being allowed to secede are monumental; likely impossible to solve.

      This ain’t 1860 no more.

      • You don’t need large military formations attacking each other, in order to have a national divorce. And that will not happen now. It’s not necessary. We can be like the former Czechoslovakia. We can peacefully go our separate ways.

        It’s starting now because of the abortion issue. And I welcome it. Let California or some other red communist state take all these pro-abortion fanatics. Take these hypocrites away who demand an abortion. And then want to use the government to force people to take the jab vaccine. And force people to wear masks. And stop people from going to work or to church.

        • “We can peacefully go our separate ways.”

          Note, I disagree that armed conflict between states will happen, either. So it is my comments only took into account the known knowns, unknown knowns, and unknown unknowns of peacefully trying to create individual nation-states inside the current borders (individual nation-states, be they current borders, or new states (rural vs. urban).

          Unless each divorced state can operate completely independent of others, or create a confederation of like-minded states that naturally connect to each other without crossing into the remaining states of the union.

          Taking the most basic of need, water, think of the complications in sorting out how hostile states will accommodate each other, and the potential for interminable conflict.

          Then comes an agreed upon common currency between the new nation-states, and an exchange rate with the remaining union of states.

          These simple matters will not be settled prior to divorce, but after.

  7. I would presume that to enforce a ‘NON-CARRY without just cause’ applies to all not just the good guys and that enforcement would require statutary rights of a ‘stop-and-search’ system. The fact is nthatb concealed carry is, for all practial purposes highly ineffective for purpose of SELF DEFENCE and STATISTICALL is far more likely to get you a oneway ticket to thye morgue than is to save your life.
    If the bad guy or gal has you at gunpoint by going for your HIDDEN CARRY all you are actually doing is turning a threat in which the first intent is NOT to kill — IF IT WAS YOU WOULD ALREADY BE DEAD, into a situation wher the intent is DEFINITELY to kill. into UNless you are prepared to openly carry -and ‘locked-and-loaded’ at that, a concealed weapon is pretty much useless in the real world.
    A real and highly trained PROFESSIONAL may just get away with it but the average Man-or woman in thge street is NOT a flocking professional. Even the liklelyhood of being faced with such a situatrion is only likely to happen in a bunch of lifetimes.
    Put up your flocking hands and hand over the money!! Which is EXACTLY what 9/10ths of you will do ‘carrying’ or not.

    • Fake news. Actual statistics show that an armed defender is more likely not to get shot than an unarmed victim. And sometimes you are defending a lot more than your wallet.

    • OK, I’ll bite. But let’s first establish your qualifications to assess the strength of your sweeping opinions.

      How much training have you had in defensive handgun use? Any force-on-force?

      Have you ever carried a handgun? Fired one? Hell, even handled one?

      But I suspect you may have stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

      Yet you purport to tell those of us who have carried for years (and many of us with not-insignificant amounts of training and/or professional experience) about the strategic and situational aspects of defensive carrying, and conclude it is futile.

      To use an old Texas expression, you’re talking out of your ass.

Comments are closed.