Various gun control laws in New York do not violate the Constitution

This gun-rights litigation challenges New York's gun control law and its application in Suffolk County. The Court of Appeals finds the "good moral character" requirement for owning a gun is consistent with the Second Amendment. It also holds that New York can legally require permit-seekers to have an in-person meeting with the permit-giver to submit certain information, except that the requirement forcing applicants to list their social media accounts is likely unconstitutional. The requirement that applicants complete 18 hours of firearms training is also likely legal, and the plaintiffs will most likely lose their arguments that Suffolk County takes too long in issuing permits. 

The case is Giambalvo v. Suffolk County, issued on September 12. This lengthy ruling issued one week prior to another gun-rights case also decided by the Second Circuit, the summary of which you can all read about at this link. Both rulings were written by Judge Bianco, who is now the unofficial expert on the Second Amendment in New York. 

 

Plaintiff sought a preliminary injunction against enforcement of these rules, which requires a showing that they are likely to win the case and will suffer irreparable harm without an early ruling in their favor. The loss of constitutional rights usually creates irreparable harm, so these cases usually turn on whether the plaintiffs can win the case when the litigation is over.

Ever since the Supreme Court issued a new constitutional framework in New York State Rifle and Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen (2002), gun rights cases have become more complex. In a nutshell, gun control laws violate the Second Amendment unless the challenged law is consistent with the laws in place when the Second Amendment was enacted in 1791 and the Fourteenth Amendment was enacted in 1868. Not an easy task, as judges have to review older statutes, court rulings, and scholarship going back over 100 years. 

Here's what the Court of Appeals (Bianco, Parker and Rakoff [D.J.]) did in this case, nearly two years after oral argument (again, owing to the complexity of these issues):

1. The good moral character requirement is likely constitutional. The Court of Appeals has already held as such in Antonyuk v. James, 120 F.4th 941 (2d Cir. 2024), and this panel reaffirms that reasoning in this case. The family-relations disclosure requirement was also upheld in Antonyuk, as was a requirement that gun permit seekers disclose other personal information. But that case said the social media requirement was likely unconstitutional, so that holding applies to this case.

2. New York also requires permit-seekers to disclose character references. Prior cases have said this requirement is legal. One case said that colonial-era gun rules had a reputation-based character reference requirement. You don't want an unsavory character to be running around with a gun, do you? This challenge therefore fails.

3. What about the requirement that permit-seekers have an in-person review in order to obtain a concealed carry license? Similar regulations were on the books many years ago, from the colonial era to the Reconstruction era, in various states. You want a face-to-face meeting with the gun owner to size him up and ensure he will not be shooting his gun off like Quick Draw McGraw. That makes this law constitutional.

4. We got ourselves a firearms training requirement, as well. The Supreme Court, in its seminal decision, District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), which said for the first time that the Second Amendment protects the right to individual gun ownership, said such training requirements are legal. We want gun owners to know what they are doing. Since then, other courts have held the same. The 18-hour training requirement is presumptively legal under the Second Amendment.

5. Finally, plaintiffs allege that Suffolk County takes its sweet time in issuing gun permits. While the Supreme Court has said that "lengthy wait times" may have constitutional implications, plaintiffs have no right under the Second Amendment to require that the county rule on such permits within 30 days. This qualifies as the kind of short delay that the Constitution will tolerate.