Federal District Court Rules NY’s Non-Resident Carry Ban Violates the Second Amendment

The Supreme Court’s Bruen decision truly is the gift that keeps on giving. This afternoon, a District Court Judge in the Northern District of New York has struck down the Empire State’s ban on concealed carry by non-residents. District Judge Mae D’Agostino — an Obama appointee — seemed to be guided by a similar ruling in California and wrote . . .

Guided by the Supreme Court’s holding in Bruen, the Court grants Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and concludes that the New York firearm statute is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment as applied to Plaintiffs Votruba and Harris. As noted by the district court in California, “the State cannot point to a single law from the Founding or framing tradition that wholesale blocked nonresidents from participating in a general firearms licensing scheme.” The Court agrees that “[o]pening the application process to nonresidents does not limit [New York’s] ability to regulate who receives a [] license based on other measured parameters. Nonresidents are simply afforded the same chance guaranteed to residents to exercise their Second Amendment rights.”

To no one’s surprise, D’Agostino noted that New York AG Tish James showed no history of regulations that supports banning residents of other states from carrying in the state.

Defendant James has not presented any legislative history which supports restricting nonresidents from applying for a firearm license in New York. Contrary to Defendant James’ argument, an “in-state residency or employment requirement for firearms licensing,” is not “entirely ‘consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.'” Defendant James contends that for the Court to reach this conclusion, it “would need to adopt an interpretation of Penal Law § 400.00(3)(a) that is contrary to both New York’s position and controlling precedent from the New York Court of Appeals” because “New York’s licensing law does not contain such a[n in-state residency or employment] requirement.”

Finally . . .

The Court has concluded that Defendants violated Plaintiffs Harris and Votruba’s Second Amendment rights insofar as New York Penal Law § 400.00(3)(a)’s residency, employment, and business prerequisites are applied to them. Therefore, the Court finds that they are entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief for the same and New York must permit residents of other states to apply for permits to carry firearms in New York. 

This ruling will, of course, be appealed. The game, after all, is to delay, delay, delay. Still, this is a very positive ruling and another brick knocked out of the gun control wall. You can read the full ruling here.