Symposium: The Second Amendment permits premises handgun licenses

[Elderberry]

SCOTUSblog by Clare Kindall 11/21/2019

Clare Kindall is the Solicitor General for the state of Connecticut. Connecticut joined a multi-state amicus brief filed in support of the respondents in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York. While in accord with the filed brief, the views expressed here are entirely her own.

On December 2, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral argument in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York. The petitioners are challenging a requirement previously included in handgun-licensing rules issued by New York City. Both the federal district court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit held that the former requirement, which has been reversed and amended by state statute and municipal regulation, did not violate the Constitution. The Supreme Court granted a petition for certiorari, with the question presented as:

    Whether the City’s ban on transporting a licensed, locked, and unloaded handgun to a home or shooting range outside city limits is consistent with the Second Amendment, the Commerce Clause, and the constitutional right to travel.

Because the Second Amendment protects homes and businesses and does not require all handgun licenses to be carry-in-public licenses, the court should uphold the 2nd Circuit’s decision and find that the former New York City requirement for its premises handgun licenses did not violate the Constitution.

Under New York state law, a handgun owner is required to have a license to possess a handgun. New York has two types of handgun licenses, a premises license and a concealed-carry license. The premises license allows handgun possession in a home or business. The concealed-carry license allows the holder to carry a concealed handgun in public. In addition to the 20,000 active New York City licenses for rifles and shotguns, there are over 40,000 active handgun-license holders in the city, most of whom have a premises license.

Under the former regulation, the city issued a “transport rule” for its premises-license holders, permitting handgun possession at home and at a place of business, and allowing possession outside the premises under two circumstances. First, the premises-license holder could transport their licensed handgun within the city to an authorized shooting range for training. There are seven authorized target-shooting ranges in New York City, with at least one in each borough. Second, the premises-license holder could obtain permission from the city police department to transport the handgun out of the city for hunting purposes. Under both exceptions, the premises-license holder is required to transport the handgun in a locked container, unloaded and separate from the ammunition. The case only challenges the city’s former transport rules for premises handgun licenses.

More: https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/11/symposium-the-second-amendment-permits-premises-handgun-licenses/#more-290384

[Smokin Joe]

Sixty thousand out of 8.6 million people have a permit to possess a pistol or long gun?
While 60,000 seems like a large number, let's translate that to small town America.

That's 0.6% of the population, and in a town of 50,000 people would mean only 348 people would be able to own a pistol or long gun, and have it in their place of business. (not carry concealed, but have it in their possession).
All others would be in violation of the law.

How is that not an egregious infringement of the RKBA?

Here, before constitutional carry for residents of the State, 48,700 people in my home state (ND, population 760,000) had concealed carry permits for pistols--that's just for concealed carry, not mere possession--and at a rate 10 times the mere possession permit rate for NYC. The contrast, is that in ND, of any 100 people, statistically, six would have a permit to pack a pistol with them. In NYC, it's take a thousand to have that many legal guns, and they couldn't carry it around.