Category: Guns

There’s a principle in statutory construction that statutes should be read in a way that gives effect to the will of the legislature. Pretty clearly the language that preempts “the law of any State or political subdivision thereof,” would be key here. But it’s not just that. It’s also what legislators are arguing. The following is from the Congressional Record:

[A]nybody who has a concealed carry permit from the State of South Dakota goes to New York and is in Central Park, Central Park would be a much safer place.

– John Thune, Senator sponsor of the amendment, 7/22/2009

Known gun runners would go to Vermont, get a gun license, get a concealed carry permit, and they could get 20, 30, 50 guns concealed in a backpack, in a suitcase, and bring them and sell them on the streets of the south Bronx or central Brooklyn, bring them to Central Park or Queens, and our local police would have their hands tied.

– Charles Schumer, in the Congressional Record, 7/21/2009

In addition to this, schumer is also on record in the same day’s record saying the bill “would affect every city in the country.” We also have to consider statements by NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly:

New York City’s strict requirements as to who can carry a concealed weapon have contributed to the city’s unparalleled public safety. Our effort, indeed our entire mission, would be severely undercut by this bill. In a city where 90 percent of all guns used in crimes come from out of State, it is easy to see how S. 845 would pose a danger to New Yorkers by greatly increasing the availability of illegal handguns for purchase.

So clearly on both sides we have ample evidence that legislators on both sides of the issue understand that New York City is subject to this law. I just wanted everyone to be aware there’s two sides to every issue. There may be a plausible reading that suggests NYC is exempted as an off limits place under New York State Law, but there’s an equally plausible, and possibly stronger reading that it is covered.

It would be nice if the language could be made more clear, but great precision is difficult to get out of the sausage grinder of Congress. It’s a given that there will be handful of states, cities, and local municipalities that will challenge whatever language comes out. My concern is people are aware of the risks, and how the language could be twisted and interpreted. Ultimately it is the courts who decide these things, and it’s worthwhile pointing out there are plausible arguments each way.

Thanks to John Richardson for updating with the language. I like the bill overall, as it bases its authority on the 14th Amendment, but does not bet the farm on it, as it also bases it on the commerce power as well. My only concern is I worry the language isn’t clear enough, and leaves some weasel room for states like New Jersey and cities like New York:

(b) A person carrying a concealed handgun under this section shall be permitted to carry a handgun subject to the same conditions or limitations that apply to residents of the State who have permits issued by the State or are otherwise lawfully allowed to do so by the State.

The concern here is that New Jersey’s condition and limitation is chiefly whether or not you have a need. Fortunately, that is clarified a bit in the next subsection:

(c) In a State that allows the issuing authority for licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms to impose restrictions on the carrying of firearms by individual holders of such licenses or permits, a firearm shall be carried according to the same terms authorized by an unrestricted license or permit issued to a resident of the State.

What if New Jersey simply declares that it does not issue unrestricted licenses, and that the restrictions are subject to a needs based test? Clearly that goes against the spirit of the law, but it’s weasel room. Also, my understanding is that a resident of the State of New York that has an unrestricted permit may still not carry within the City of New York, without having a separate permit from the City of New York. I don’t know enough about how New York Law is structured, but I’m not sure this bill will allow you to carry in New York City.

This bill also does not have the same provisions for those in Vermont who do not have the option to get a license to carry, but Vermonters can get covered by obtaining a non-resident license from another state. That provision was likely left out to increase the chance of passage.

UPDATE: From New York Penal Code:

License:  validity. Any license issued pursuant to this section shall be valid notwithstanding the provisions of any local law or ordinance. No license shall be transferable to any other person or premises. A license to carry or possess a pistol or revolver, not otherwise limited as to place or time of possession, shall be effective throughout the state, except that the same shall not be valid within the city of New York unless a special permit granting validity is issued by the police commissioner of that city.

So in New York State Law, the City of New York is off limits as a matter of state law, without a license from the City of New York. While this reciprocity bill preempts local law, it does not preempt state law in the matter of where one can and can’t carry. There is a very plausible argument that under this bill, New York City is off limits without a license form that city. Also consider this section:

(d) Nothing in this section shall be construed to preempt any provision of State law with respect to the issuance of licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms.

If people are going to have faith in this bill, the language needs to be rock solid and clear. Otherwise someone is going to end up in prison.

Introduced by Republican Cliff Stearns and Democrat, Heath Schuler. I’ll be curious to see text. I’m opposed to using the commerce power to accomplish this, but am very open to using Congress’ powers under the 14th Amendment. Due to existing Supreme Court precedent, Congress’ power to do this is somewhat questionable, but I’d prefer Congress interpret its powers under the 14th Amendment broadly, and let the courts be the ones to rebuke them. Many federal judges and Supreme Court justices might be reluctant to second guess the elected branches of government on this matter, especially if the bill passes with bipartisan majorities.

Jacob notes that Nassau D.A. Kathleen Rice is going after assault weapons in her district. Not going after drug dealers with assault weapons, but rather going after dealers who sell firearms with folding stocks that are pinned not to fold, but where the pin can be easily removed. Does she really expect us to believe that she’s making New York a safer place by ridding it of the scourge of folding stocks? Is it a wise use of taxpayer dollars to put otherwise law abiding people like this in jail? Is it even just? If you think about this hard enough, you’ll start to understand why I think many people on the other side of this issue are actually horrible people.

UPDATE: SayUncle is reporting it looks like it’s politically motivated. The gun shop owner filed a civil rights suit against the city previously. I guess that’s sufficient reason for a DA to be looking for revenge.