Second Circuit upholds New York's gun laws under the Second Amendment

The Court of Appeals takes up a Second Amendment challenge to New York gun laws, finding that the laws, which require that gun owners have "good moral character" and that the gun license may be revoked for "good cause" are not unconstitutionally vague and are therefore legal.

The case is Libertarian Party of Erie County v. Cuomo, issued on August 11. The Supreme Court activated the Second Amendment in Heller v. District of Columbia, its landmark ruling in 2008 that held for the first time that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to gun ownership. But Heller does not extend this right without any limitation. The Supreme Court said the government still has authority to restrict gun ownership in certain instances. In the world of constitutional law, Heller is still sufficiently "new" that challenges to state gun rules are still upon us in the hope that the federal courts will strike them down under Heller. Not this case.

Courts will strike down laws under the "void for vagueness" doctrine when the statute is sufficiently indefinite that "ordinary people can understand" its language and guide themselves accordingly. But this doctrine does not require legislatures to "meticulous specificity." To win such a challenge, the plaintiff must show that "no set of circumstances exist under which the Act would be valid." So this is a difficult standard to meet.

Plaintiffs argue that New York's rule that guns may be restricted unless the gun owner has "good moral character" or upon "proper cause" or "good cause" runs afoul of Heller. Not so, the Court of Appeals (Kearse, Walker and Jacobs) says, because the Supreme Court in Heller said its ruling will not "cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings." Heller also said these examples are not exhaustive, suggesting there are other ways for the government to restrict guns.

What it means for plaintiffs in this case is that ordinary people would understand "good moral character" and "good cause" to cover drug addiction, repeatedly reckless conduct with a weapon while intoxicated, and threats to harm others. There is no reason for confusion under New York's statutory language. The Court of Appeals also upholds New York's gun laws because they advance legitimate goals and do not prevent law-abiding, responsible gun owners from having a weapon. It does prevent people with serious criminal records, fugitives from justice, and drug addicts from having a gun.