CNN
—
The Supreme Court declined Monday to decide whether a New York law that requires residents to have “good moral character” to carry a handgun is constitutional, leaving in place most of the state’s ban on carrying weapons in “sensitive places,” such as schools, parks and theaters.
The decision is a victory for New York officials and gun control groups, who have been attempting to approve or defend gun prohibitions in the wake of a blockbuster 2022 Supreme Court precedent that widely expanded the ability of Americans to carry guns in public. The New York law in question in the case was a response to that decision.
The court didn’t explain its reasoning and there were no noted dissents.
The state’s law requires residents to show “good moral character” to obtain a firearm license. The new law defined that term to mean “having the essential character, temperament and judgement necessary to be entrusted with a weapon and to use it only in a manner that does not endanger oneself or others.”
The law also set aside several “sensitive” locations where carrying weapons is banned. New York included government buildings, schools, hospitals, stadiums and Times Square in the list of covered spaces. Whether that approach can survive court scrutiny is being closely watched by other states.
Gun rights groups challenging the law say the number of scope of sensitive places cover “virtually the entire landmass of New York” and makes carrying a weapon “so risky that even the hyper-law-abiding licensee would not dare.” The lawsuit was filed by five New Yorkers with licenses to carry firearms and one individual who has argued the law has deterred him from obtaining a license.
The plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court in January.
The appeal has been up at the Supreme Court before – and has been heavily influenced by the court’s decisions. The case is largely based on the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which struck down a New York requirement that residents show good cause to obtain a license to carry a handgun outside of their home. Gun control groups have argued that New York is trying to flout the high court’s decision in Bruen.
The decision Monday was the latest in which the high court declined to take up appeals that have followed from the Bruen decision in recent years. The justices have for weeks been considering several other Second Amendment appeals, including one dealing with Maryland’s ban on certain semi-automatic rifles.
In addition to striking down New York’s law at the time, the Supreme Court set a new, history-based standard for review gun prohibitions. In order to pass judicial scrutiny, the court ruled, a gun law must have some connection with gun regulations in place at the time of the nation’s founding. That ruling has sparked considerable uncertainty in lower court about just how much a connection is required.
The Supreme Court tried to clarify things with a decision last year when it upheld a federal law that bars people who are the subject of certain domestic violence restraining orders from owning guns.
After reviewing the New York case in light of the decision on restraining orders, the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals upheld much of the state’s law last fall. It did, however, let stand a lower court order blocking enforcement of the state’s ban on carrying concealed weapons in certain privately owned retail establishments, such as supermarkets and restaurants.
