A federal judge ruled Tuesday that New York City’s gun licensing regime, which allows city officials to turn down applicants for firearms based on their “moral character,” violates the Second Amendment.
US District Judge John Cronan struck down the regulations in a 48-page ruling, determining that empowering unelected officials with discretionary authority to refuse gun permits to those “not of good moral character” or for “other good cause” is inconsistent with the country’s “tradition of firearm regulation” – a standard set by the Supreme Court in last year’s New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen case, which overturned the Empire State’s century-old law restricting the carrying of concealed firearms.
Cronan, an appointee of former President Donald Trump, found the city requirements “vague and unconstrained” but stayed his ruling through Thursday to allow officials time to appeal.
The defendants in the case, New York City and NYPD Commissioner Keechant Sewell, cited 18th century laws in New Hampshire and Massachusetts that allowed authorities to arrest and disarm people for certain offenses in an attempt to show historical analogues for the regulations.
Cronan found the argument unconvincing, writing that the NYC regulations “apply broadly to those seeking to possess a firearm.”
“[N]othing in either the Massachusetts or New Hampshire statute provides a burden on the right to bear arms comparable to a holistic and discretionary assessment of an individual’s character or other unspecified good cause prior to that individual’s ability to exercise their right to possess a firearm,” he added.
“This case is not about the ability of a state or municipality to impose appropriate and constitutionally valid regulations governing the issuance of firearm licenses and permits,” the judge wrote.
“The constitutional infirmities identified herein lie not in the City’s decision to impose requirements for the possession of handguns, rifles, and shotguns. Rather, the provisions fail to pass constitutional muster because of the magnitude of discretion afforded to City officials in denying an individual their constitutional right to keep and bear firearms, and because of Defendants’ failure to show that such unabridged discretion has any grounding in our Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”
The plaintiff in the case, Joseph Srour, filed suit after his applications for permits to possess handguns, rifles and shotguns had been denied by the NYPD’s License Division in 2019 over his prior arrests, driving history, and supposed false statements on his application.
“Based on your prior arrests for [redacted] you have shown poor moral judgment and an unwillingness to abide by the law,” the NYPD License Division explained to Srour in one of the denial notices sent to him. “The above circumstances, as well as your derogatory driving record (twenty-eight moving violations and thirty license suspensions), reflect negatively on your moral character and casts [sic] grave doubt upon your fitness to possess a firearm.”
Srour noted that the criminal charges against him were ultimately dismissed.
Tuesday’s decision follows a US district judge in California ruling last week that the Golden State’s 33-year-old law banning assault weapons was unconstitutional.
US District Judge Roger Benitez also pointed to the Second Amendment’s right to “keep and bear arms” and the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in Bruen in ruling against California’s ban.