{"id":269017,"date":"2022-06-26T11:00:55","date_gmt":"2022-06-26T05:30:55","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=269017"},"modified":"2022-07-08T22:04:13","modified_gmt":"2022-07-08T16:34:13","slug":"scotus-new-yorks-proper-cause-requisite-to-possess-concealed-firearms-declared-unconstitutional-for-preventing-law-abiding-citizens-from-exercising-their-second-amendment-right","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/06\/26\/scotus-new-yorks-proper-cause-requisite-to-possess-concealed-firearms-declared-unconstitutional-for-preventing-law-abiding-citizens-from-exercising-their-second-amendment-right\/","title":{"rendered":"SCOTUS| New York&#8217;s &#8220;proper cause&#8221; requisite to possess concealed firearms, declared unconstitutional for preventing law-abiding citizens from exercising their Second Amendment right"},"content":{"rendered":"<div style=\"text-align: justify; line-height: 150%;\">\n<p style=\"text-indent: 18pt;\"><span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">Supreme Court of The United States<\/span>: In a crucial decision, the SCOTUS while deliberating upon New York&#8217;s \u201c<span style=\"font-style: italic;\">proper cause<\/span>\u201d requirement to possess a concealed firearm; declared with a thumping ratio of 6: 3 that, the \u201c<span style=\"font-style: italic;\">proper-cause<\/span>\u201d requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in public for self-defense. This decision by the Court assumes a lot of significance given the current discourse in the country surrounding several mass shootings and the Second Amendment.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-indent: 18pt;\"><span style=\"font-weight: bold;\"><span style=\"color: #152bd4;\">Facts and Legal Trajectory of the Case:<\/span> <\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-indent: 18pt;\">New York residents and law-abiding citizens, Brandon Koch and Robert Nash, both applied for unrestricted licenses to carry a handgun in public based on their generalized interest in self-defense. The State denied both of their applications for unrestricted licenses, allegedly because Koch and Nash failed to satisfy the \u201c<span style=\"font-style: italic;\">proper cause<\/span>\u201d requirement.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-indent: 18pt; margin-bottom: 3%;\">Petitioners sued state officials who oversee the processing of licensing applications, for declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging that the respondents violated their Second and Fourteenth Amendment rights by denying their unrestricted-license applications for failure to demonstrate a unique need for self-defense. The District Court dismissed petitioners&#8217; complaint and the Court of Appeals affirmed that decision. It was observed that New York&#8217;s <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">proper-cause<\/span> standard was \u201csubstantially related to the achievement of an important governmental interest\u201d. Aggrieved with the decision, the petitioners preferred to approach the SCOTUS.<\/p>\n<p style=\"font-weight: bold;\"><span style=\"color: #1029e8;\">The Laws in question<\/span><\/p>\n<ul style=\"list-style-type: disc; margin-left: 12.7mm;\">\n<li>\n<p class=\"List\u00a0Paragraph\" style=\"margin-left: 0.0mm;\"><span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">The New York Penal Law<\/span> makes it a crime to possess a firearm without a license, whether inside or outside the home. An individual who wants to carry a firearm outside his home may obtain an unrestricted license to \u201c<span style=\"font-style: italic;\">have and carry<\/span>\u201d a concealed pistol or revolver if he can prove that <span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">\u201c<span style=\"font-style: italic;\">proper cause exists<\/span>\u201d<\/span> for doing so. An applicant satisfies the \u201cproper cause\u201d requirement only if they can \u201c<span style=\"font-style: italic;\">demonstrate a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community\u201d <\/span>[N. Y. Penal Law Ann. \u00a7400.00(2)(f)]<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<li>\n<p class=\"List\u00a0Paragraph\" style=\"margin-left: 0.0mm;\"><span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">The Second Amendment <\/span>of the US Constitution states that a well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.<a id=\"fnref0\" href=\"#fn0\"><sup>1<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n<\/li>\n<li>\n<p class=\"List\u00a0Paragraph\" style=\"margin-left: 0.0mm;\"><span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">The Fourteenth Amendment <\/span>of the US Constitution deals with multiple aspects of citizenship and the rights of citizens.<a id=\"fnref1\" href=\"#fn1\"><sup>2<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p style=\"text-indent: 18pt; margin-bottom: 3%;\"><span style=\"font-weight: bold;\"><span style=\"color: #152bd4;\">Observations by the Majority:<\/span> <\/span>The majority opinion was delivered by Clarence Thomas, J., and he was joined and concurred by John Roberts, CJ., and Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, JJ. The majority made the following observations regarding constitutionality of the \u201cproper- cause\u201d requirement-<\/p>\n<ul style=\"list-style-type: disc; margin-left: 12.7mm;\">\n<li>\n<p class=\"List\u00a0Paragraph\" style=\"margin-left: 0.0mm;\">Relying on <i>District of Columbia<\/i> v. <i>Heller<\/i> <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/Jj13tAaM\">2008 SCC OnLine US SC 63<\/a> and <i>McDonald<\/i> v. <i>City of Chicago<\/i>, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/baLy6lS9\">2010 SCC OnLine US SC 87,<\/a> it was noted that the Second Amendment&#8217;s plain text covers an individual&#8217;s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct, and to justify a firearm regulation the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with the Nation&#8217;s historical tradition of firearm regulation. To determine whether a firearm regulation is consistent with the Second Amendment, <span style=\"font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;\">Heller<\/span> and <span style=\"font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;\">McDonald<\/span> point toward at least two relevant metrics: whether modern and historical regulations impose a comparable burden on the right of armed self-defense; and whether that regulatory burden is comparably justified. Since \u201c<span style=\"font-style: italic;\">individual self-defense is the central component&#8217; of the Second Amendment right, therefore, these two metrics are central considerations when engaging in an analogical inquiry<\/span>. \u201c<span style=\"font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;\">The respondents&#8217; attempt to characterize New York&#8217;s proper-cause requirement as a \u2018sensitive-place law&#8217; lacks merit because there is no historical basis for New York to effectively declare the island of Manhattan a sensitive place simply because it is crowded and protected generally by the New York City Police Department\u201d<\/span>.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<li>\n<p class=\"List\u00a0Paragraph\" style=\"margin-left: 0.0mm;\">It was observed that petitioners Koch and Nash are two ordinary, law-abiding, adult citizens and are part of \u201c<span style=\"font-style: italic;\">the people<\/span>\u201d whom the Second Amendment seeks to protect; and there is no dispute as to the fact that handguns are weapons in common use today for self-defense. \u201c<span style=\"font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;\">Nothing in the Second Amendment&#8217;s text draws a home\/public distinction with respect to the right to keep and bear arms, and the definition of \u201cbear\u201d naturally encompasses public carry\u201d. <\/span><\/p>\n<\/li>\n<li>\n<p class=\"List\u00a0Paragraph\" style=\"margin-left: 0.0mm;\">The majority also pointed out that burden falls on respondents to show that New York&#8217;s <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">proper-cause<\/span> requirement is consistent with this Nation&#8217;s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Though the respondents have cited documents dating from 1200s to the early 1900s, however, <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">\u201cwhen it comes to interpreting the Constitution, not all history is created equal\u201d<\/span>. The Second Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment were adopted in 1791 and 1868 respectively. <span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">\u201c<span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Historical evidence that long predates or postdates either time may not illuminate the scope of the right. With these principles in mind, the Court concludes that respondents have failed to meet their burden to identify an American tradition justifying New York&#8217;s proper-cause requirement. The historical evidence from antebellum America does demonstrate that the manner of public carry was subject to reasonable regulation, but none of these limitations on the right to bear arms operated to prevent law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from carrying arms in public for that purpose\u201d. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p style=\"text-indent: 18pt; margin-bottom: 3%;\"><span style=\"font-weight: bold; color: #152bd4;\">The Dissent: <\/span>Justice Stephen Breyer along with Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, JJ., filed a dissenting opinion. The dissenting judges cited relevant records and pointed out that in 2020 alone, around 45,222 Americans were killed by firearms and since the start of 2022, there have been 277 reported mass shootings- <span style=\"font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;\">\u201cGun violence has now surpassed motor vehicle crashes as the leading cause of death among children and adolescents\u201d. <\/span>Other salient observations made by the dissenting Judges are as follows-<\/p>\n<ul style=\"list-style-type: disc; margin-left: 12.7mm;\">\n<li>\n<p class=\"List\u00a0Paragraph\" style=\"margin-left: 0.0mm;\">Noting that ever since the rise in cases of mass shooting, there are many States that are trying to address the dangers of gun violence by passing laws that limit, in various ways, who may purchase, carry, or use firearms of different kinds. However, the majority opinion in the instant matter severely burdens States&#8217; efforts to do so. \u201c<span style=\"font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;\">The Court decides this case on the basis of the pleadings, without the benefit of discovery or an evidentiary record. As a result, it may well rest its decision on a mistaken understanding of how New York&#8217;s law operates in practice\u201d. <\/span><\/p>\n<\/li>\n<li>\n<p class=\"List\u00a0Paragraph\" style=\"margin-left: 0.0mm;\">The Judges also stated that when courts interpret the Second Amendment, it is constitutionally proper, and often necessary, for them to consider the serious dangers and consequences of gun violence that lead States to regulate firearms. They also noted that mass shootings are just one dimension of the problem; easy access to firearms can also make many other aspects of American life more dangerous \u00e2\u20ac\u201c like cases of road rage and domestic violence to name a few. Furthermore, \u201c<span style=\"font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;\">The presence of a gun in the hands of a civilian poses a risk to both officers and civilians\u201d. <\/span>It was pointed out that most officers who are killed in the line of duty are killed by firearms; and that the officers in States with high rates of gun ownership are three times as likely to be killed in the line of duty as officers in States with low rates of gun ownership.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<li>\n<p class=\"List\u00a0Paragraph\" style=\"margin-left: 0.0mm;\"><span style=\"font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;\">\u201cQuestion of firearm regulation presents a complex problem\u2014one that should be solved by legislatures rather than courts\u201d<\/span>. The Judges opined that the Second Amendment allows States to take account of the serious problems posed by gun violence. Therefore, it is concerning that the majority&#8217;s interpretation ignores the significant dangers and leaves the States without the ability to address them. \u201c<span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Question presented in this case concerns the extent to which the Second Amendment restricts different States (and the Federal Government) from working out solutions to these problems through democratic processes\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/li>\n<li>\n<p class=\"List\u00a0Paragraph\" style=\"margin-left: 0.0mm;\">Regarding the New York \u201c<span style=\"font-style: italic;\">proper-cause<\/span>\u201d requisite, the dissenting Judges observed that counsels for the respondents present substantial data justifying the State&#8217;s decision to retain a \u201cmay issue\u201d licensing regime. The data shows that stricter gun regulations are associated with lower rates of firearm-related death and injury. The Judges also questioned as to how the majority struck the impugned law without first considering how it actually works on the ground and what purposes it serves. It was stated that the majority misread the <span style=\"font-weight: bold;\"><span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Heller<\/span> <\/span>case and in an unusual manner, relied only on <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">its own history-only approach. <span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">\u201cThe Court&#8217;s near-exclusive reliance on history is not only unnecessary, it is deeply impractical. It imposes a task on the lower courts that judges cannot easily accomplish.<\/span> <\/span>The dissenting opinion stated that the Court is bound by <span style=\"font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;\">Heller<\/span> case insofar as it interpreted the Second Amendment to protect an individual right to possess a firearm for self-defense. \u201c<span style=\"font-weight: bold;\"><span style=\"font-style: italic;\">But <\/span>Heller<span style=\"font-style: italic;\"> recognized that this right was not without limits and could appropriately be subject to government regulation<\/span><\/span>.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<li>\n<p class=\"List\u00a0Paragraph\" style=\"margin-left: 0.0mm;\">In an impassioned conclusion, the Judges opined that this Court is not comprised of historians; however, the detailed study of history by the majority Judges seems to establish a robust tradition of regulations restricting the public carriage of concealed firearms. <span style=\"font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;\">\u201cIt is appropriate in such circumstances to look beyond history and engage in what the Court calls means-to-end scrutiny. Courts must be permitted to consider the State&#8217;s interest in preventing gun violence, the effectiveness of the contested law in achieving that interest, the degree to which the law burdens the Second Amendment right, and, if appropriate, any less restrictive alternatives\u201d. <\/span><\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p style=\"text-indent: 18pt; margin-bottom: 3%;\"><span style=\"font-weight: bold;\"><span style=\"color: #1029e8;\">Conclusion and Decision:<\/span> <\/span>Considering the historical facets of firearm restrictions and other relevant aspects, the Court with a ratio of 6: 3 concluded that the constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not a second-class right. \u201c<span style=\"font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;\">The exercise of other constitutional rights does not require individuals to demonstrate to government officers some special need. The Second Amendment right to carry arms in public for self-defense is no different\u201d. <\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-indent: 18pt; margin-bottom: 3%;\">It was thus held that New York&#8217;s <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">proper-cause<\/span> requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs, from exercising their right to keep and bear arms in public.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-indent: 18pt; margin-bottom: 3%;\">[<span style=\"font-weight: bold; color: #632423;\">New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/1Ek6TOFd\">2022 SCC OnLine US SC 8<\/a>, decided on 23-06-2022<\/span>]<\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<p style=\"text-indent: 18pt;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #000080;\">*Sucheta Sarkar, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<p><a id=\"fn0\" href=\"#fnref0\">1.<\/a> <a href=\"https:\/\/constitution.congress.gov\/constitution\/amendment-2\/#%3A%7E%3Atext%3DA%2520well%2520regulated%2520Militia%252C%2520being%2CArms%252C%2520shall%2520not%2520be%2520infringed\">Second Amendement<\/a>, Constitution Annotated<\/p>\n<p><a id=\"fn1\" href=\"#fnref1\">2.<\/a> <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.cornell.edu\/constitution\/amendmentxiv#%3A%7E%3Atext%3DNo%2520state%2520shall%2520make%2520or%2Cequal%2520protection%2520of%2520the%2520laws\">The Fourteenth Amendment<\/a>, Legal Information Institute [Cornell Law School]<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of The United States: In a crucial decision, the SCOTUS while deliberating upon New York&#8217;s \u201cproper cause\u201d requirement to possess <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67011,"featured_media":32691,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,12],"tags":[25144,7501,49860,49861,40522,30014,34791],"class_list":["post-269017","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-foreigncourts","tag-firearms","tag-fourteenth-amendment","tag-gun-control","tag-mass-shootings","tag-new-york","tag-scotus","tag-second-amendment"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO Premium plugin v26.4 (Yoast SEO v26.4) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/wordpress\/plugins\/seo\/ -->\n<title>SCOTUS| New York&#039;s &quot;proper cause&quot; requisite to possess concealed firearms, declared unconstitutional for preventing law-abiding citizens from exercising their Second Amendment right | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"a lot of significance given the current discourse in the country surrounding several mass shootings and the Second Amendment\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/06\/26\/scotus-new-yorks-proper-cause-requisite-to-possess-concealed-firearms-declared-unconstitutional-for-preventing-law-abiding-citizens-from-exercising-their-second-amendment-right\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"SCOTUS| New York&#039;s &quot;proper cause&quot; requisite to possess concealed firearms, declared unconstitutional for preventing law-abiding citizens from exercising their Second Amendment right\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"a lot of significance given the current discourse in the country surrounding several mass shootings and the Second Amendment\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/06\/26\/scotus-new-yorks-proper-cause-requisite-to-possess-concealed-firearms-declared-unconstitutional-for-preventing-law-abiding-citizens-from-exercising-their-second-amendment-right\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2022-06-26T05:30:55+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2022-07-08T16:34:13+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1330\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"887\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/06\/26\/scotus-new-yorks-proper-cause-requisite-to-possess-concealed-firearms-declared-unconstitutional-for-preventing-law-abiding-citizens-from-exercising-their-second-amendment-right\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/06\/26\/scotus-new-yorks-proper-cause-requisite-to-possess-concealed-firearms-declared-unconstitutional-for-preventing-law-abiding-citizens-from-exercising-their-second-amendment-right\/\",\"name\":\"SCOTUS| New York's \\\"proper cause\\\" requisite to possess concealed firearms, declared unconstitutional for preventing law-abiding citizens from exercising their Second Amendment right | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/06\/26\/scotus-new-yorks-proper-cause-requisite-to-possess-concealed-firearms-declared-unconstitutional-for-preventing-law-abiding-citizens-from-exercising-their-second-amendment-right\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/06\/26\/scotus-new-yorks-proper-cause-requisite-to-possess-concealed-firearms-declared-unconstitutional-for-preventing-law-abiding-citizens-from-exercising-their-second-amendment-right\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2022-06-26T05:30:55+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2022-07-08T16:34:13+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"description\":\"a lot of significance given the current discourse in the country surrounding several mass shootings and the Second Amendment\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/06\/26\/scotus-new-yorks-proper-cause-requisite-to-possess-concealed-firearms-declared-unconstitutional-for-preventing-law-abiding-citizens-from-exercising-their-second-amendment-right\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/06\/26\/scotus-new-yorks-proper-cause-requisite-to-possess-concealed-firearms-declared-unconstitutional-for-preventing-law-abiding-citizens-from-exercising-their-second-amendment-right\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/06\/26\/scotus-new-yorks-proper-cause-requisite-to-possess-concealed-firearms-declared-unconstitutional-for-preventing-law-abiding-citizens-from-exercising-their-second-amendment-right\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg\",\"width\":1330,\"height\":887,\"caption\":\"Supreme Court of The United States\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/06\/26\/scotus-new-yorks-proper-cause-requisite-to-possess-concealed-firearms-declared-unconstitutional-for-preventing-law-abiding-citizens-from-exercising-their-second-amendment-right\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"SCOTUS| New York&#8217;s &#8220;proper cause&#8221; requisite to possess concealed firearms, declared unconstitutional for preventing law-abiding citizens from exercising their Second Amendment right\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\",\"name\":\"Editor\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Editor\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"SCOTUS| New York's \"proper cause\" requisite to possess concealed firearms, declared unconstitutional for preventing law-abiding citizens from exercising their Second Amendment right | SCC Times","description":"a lot of significance given the current discourse in the country surrounding several mass shootings and the Second Amendment","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/06\/26\/scotus-new-yorks-proper-cause-requisite-to-possess-concealed-firearms-declared-unconstitutional-for-preventing-law-abiding-citizens-from-exercising-their-second-amendment-right\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"SCOTUS| New York's \"proper cause\" requisite to possess concealed firearms, declared unconstitutional for preventing law-abiding citizens from exercising their Second Amendment right","og_description":"a lot of significance given the current discourse in the country surrounding several mass shootings and the Second Amendment","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/06\/26\/scotus-new-yorks-proper-cause-requisite-to-possess-concealed-firearms-declared-unconstitutional-for-preventing-law-abiding-citizens-from-exercising-their-second-amendment-right\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2022-06-26T05:30:55+00:00","article_modified_time":"2022-07-08T16:34:13+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1330,"height":887,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Editor","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Editor","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/06\/26\/scotus-new-yorks-proper-cause-requisite-to-possess-concealed-firearms-declared-unconstitutional-for-preventing-law-abiding-citizens-from-exercising-their-second-amendment-right\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/06\/26\/scotus-new-yorks-proper-cause-requisite-to-possess-concealed-firearms-declared-unconstitutional-for-preventing-law-abiding-citizens-from-exercising-their-second-amendment-right\/","name":"SCOTUS| New York's \"proper cause\" requisite to possess concealed firearms, declared unconstitutional for preventing law-abiding citizens from exercising their Second Amendment right | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/06\/26\/scotus-new-yorks-proper-cause-requisite-to-possess-concealed-firearms-declared-unconstitutional-for-preventing-law-abiding-citizens-from-exercising-their-second-amendment-right\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/06\/26\/scotus-new-yorks-proper-cause-requisite-to-possess-concealed-firearms-declared-unconstitutional-for-preventing-law-abiding-citizens-from-exercising-their-second-amendment-right\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg","datePublished":"2022-06-26T05:30:55+00:00","dateModified":"2022-07-08T16:34:13+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"description":"a lot of significance given the current discourse in the country surrounding several mass shootings and the Second Amendment","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/06\/26\/scotus-new-yorks-proper-cause-requisite-to-possess-concealed-firearms-declared-unconstitutional-for-preventing-law-abiding-citizens-from-exercising-their-second-amendment-right\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/06\/26\/scotus-new-yorks-proper-cause-requisite-to-possess-concealed-firearms-declared-unconstitutional-for-preventing-law-abiding-citizens-from-exercising-their-second-amendment-right\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/06\/26\/scotus-new-yorks-proper-cause-requisite-to-possess-concealed-firearms-declared-unconstitutional-for-preventing-law-abiding-citizens-from-exercising-their-second-amendment-right\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg","width":1330,"height":887,"caption":"Supreme Court of The United States"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/06\/26\/scotus-new-yorks-proper-cause-requisite-to-possess-concealed-firearms-declared-unconstitutional-for-preventing-law-abiding-citizens-from-exercising-their-second-amendment-right\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"SCOTUS| New York&#8217;s &#8220;proper cause&#8221; requisite to possess concealed firearms, declared unconstitutional for preventing law-abiding citizens from exercising their Second Amendment right"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe","name":"Editor","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Editor"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":269126,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/06\/28\/courts-must-be-permitted-to-consider-the-states-interest-in-preventing-gun-violence-read-scotus-dissent-on-new-york-gun-law-being-declared-unconstitutional-for-violating-2nd-amendment\/","url_meta":{"origin":269017,"position":0},"title":"&#8220;Courts must be permitted to consider the State&#8217;s interest in preventing gun violence&#8221; Read SCOTUS Dissent on New York Gun Law being declared unconstitutional for violating 2nd Amendment","author":"Editor","date":"June 28, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"\"Question of firearm regulation presents a complex problem\u2014one that should be solved by legislatures rather than courts\".","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Supreme Court of The United States","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":316190,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/03\/06\/sc-colorado-decision-name-removal-donald-trump-presidential-primary-ballot-scotus-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":269017,"position":1},"title":"SCOTUS reverses Colorado Supreme Court\u2019s decision to remove Donald Trump\u2019s name from the state\u2019s presidential primary ballot","author":"Sucheta","date":"March 6, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"In a unanimous verdict, the SCOTUS held that power to enforce Section 3 of 14th Amendment to the US Constitution against federal officeholders and candidates, lies with the Congress rather than the States.","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Donald Trump Colorado Supreme Court presidential primary ballot SCOTUS","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/Donald-Trump-Colorado-Supreme-Court-presidential-primary-ballot-SCOTUS.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/Donald-Trump-Colorado-Supreme-Court-presidential-primary-ballot-SCOTUS.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/Donald-Trump-Colorado-Supreme-Court-presidential-primary-ballot-SCOTUS.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/Donald-Trump-Colorado-Supreme-Court-presidential-primary-ballot-SCOTUS.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":269034,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/06\/25\/scotus-united-states-supreme-court-right-to-abortion-not-constitutional-right-roe-wade-overruled-legal-updates-research-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":269017,"position":2},"title":"SCOTUS| United States\u2019 Constitution does not confer any right to abortion; Roe v. Wade overruled after 49 years","author":"Editor","date":"June 25, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court of The United States: In a far-reaching decision concerning an American woman\u2019s right to abortion, the Court held that the Constitution of United States does not confer any right vis-\u00e0-vis abortions. This judgment decisively overrules the landmark SCOTUS ruling of Roe v. Wade, 1973 SCC OnLine US SC\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Supreme Court of The United States","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":233301,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/08\/03\/scotus-lower-courts-order-allowing-a-ballot-initiative-to-collect-signatures-electronically-blocked\/","url_meta":{"origin":269017,"position":3},"title":"SCOTUS | Lower Court&#8217;s order allowing a ballot initiative to collect signatures electronically &#8212; Blocked","author":"Editor","date":"August 3, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS): A majority opinion delivered by Chief Justice Roberts and joined by Alito J, Gorsuch J. and Kavanaugh J. temporarily reversed a lower court order which had extended the deadline for a political action committee to gather signatures for a ballot initiative electronically. The\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Supreme Court of The United States","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":237681,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/10\/18\/scotus-providing-dissimilar-treatment-for-men-and-women-who-are-similarly-situated-cannot-stand-in-the-face-of-fourteenth-amendment-and-the-equal-protection-clause-court-while-construing-provisions\/","url_meta":{"origin":269017,"position":4},"title":"SCOTUS | Providing dissimilar treatment for men and women who are similarly situated cannot stand in the face of Fourteenth Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause: Court while construing provisions of Idaho Code","author":"Editor","date":"October 18, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS): A Full Judge Bench of Warren E. Burger, C.J. and Lewis F. Powell, Jr., Harry A. Blackmun, William J. Brennan, Jr., William O. Douglas, Thurgood Marshall, Byron R. White, Potter Stewart and William H. Rehnquist, JJ. reversed a judgment appeal of the Idaho\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Supreme Court of The United States","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":295953,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/07\/04\/scotus-colorado-anti-discrimination-laws-cannot-compel-creating-designs-contrary-personal-beliefs-marriage\/","url_meta":{"origin":269017,"position":5},"title":"Colorado&#8217;s anti-discrimination law cannot compel a wedding website designer to create expressive designs contrary to her personal beliefs on marriage: SCOTUS","author":"Sucheta","date":"July 4, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"The Court with a ratio of 6:3 protected the First Amendment right of the petitioner who believes in heterosexual marriages only.","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"supreme court of the united states","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/supreme-court-of-the-united-states.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/supreme-court-of-the-united-states.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/supreme-court-of-the-united-states.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/supreme-court-of-the-united-states.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/269017","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67011"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=269017"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/269017\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/32691"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=269017"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=269017"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=269017"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}