The legal possession and carrying of assault weapons in New York City’s crowded public spaces would also force officers to make rapid, highly fraught determinations based on little information about who is likely to be a lawful and peaceful firearm carrier and who intends to use the firearm for criminal harm. To be sure, police officers are tasked everyday with decisions that test the tensions between public safety and constitutional rights. Officers rely on their training, understanding of the law, and best judgment to determine which activities require further investigation and which do not.
But the legalization of assault weapons in New York City would make these encounters even more difficult to navigate. The presence of these weapons in public places would lead to alarm and increased emergency calls, and it would be the rare situation where an officer could discern without intrusive investigation whether the person was carrying the firearm legally. Judging correctly whether an individual carrying an assault weapon means no harm could be the difference between life and death. NYPD officers, committed to following the law and keeping people safe, would regularly be put in a seemingly impossible position. A constitutional doctrine that puts our officers in this bind ignores the reality of policing in a densely populated and pedestrian-focused city like New York.
NYPD officers regularly do not encounter this problem with handgun possession because the City’s licensing regulations allow only concealed carry. See 38 R.C.N.Y. § 5-01(b). Currently, if an officer sees a firearm carried in the open or receives a report of such behavior, there is probable cause to believe that a violation has occurred, permitting the officer to intercede. That certainty would disappear if the carrying of assault weapons became legal because assault weapons can only be carried openly. NYPD officers should not be placed in a position where they are constantly having to determine, with no good options, how to thread the needle between Second Amendment rights and their mission to protect the public from harm.
Finally, the NYPD is aware that organizations representing other law-enforcement entities have filed a brief in support of petitioners, arguing, among other things, that those entities “welcome the help” from citizens armed with assault weapons “in fighting crime” so that the “burden on law enforcement” is eased.22 The NYPD strongly disagrees with this sentiment. In the NYPD’s institutional experience, the job of law enforcement will become much more difficult and dangerous, at least in a densely populated city such as New York, if members of the public are carrying highly powerful and particularly lethal firearms.
Whatever the merits of these amici’s views when it comes to their own jurisdictions, they simply make no sense in a place like New York City. The Second Amendment should pose no barrier to New York City and New York State choosing a different path for protecting our officers and the public.
— New York Police Department amicus brief in Viramontes v. Cook County