FN 509 Midsize in it's holster with the provided lock and a spare magazine. / Photo by Chris O'Neil

New York State’s May Issue Permit system is currently being debated in the Supreme Court case New York State Pistol & Rifle Association v. Bruen. Following oral arguments made Wednesday morning, many now believe the court will side with the New York State Pistol & Rifle Association.

Based on the questions being asked during the two hours of oral arguments made before the Supreme Court, it would seem that justices are leaning towards siding with the New York State Pistol & Rifle Association.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. expressed his skepticism about the current licensing system in the state of New York. Chief Justice Roberts was surprised to find out that an individual’s constitutional right was able to be barred by a mere local official. 

Other Justices raised questions about certain bans on firearms that pertain to specific areas of New York City. Justices inquired about firearm bans in subway stations, sporting arenas, and even Times Square. 

Paul D. Clement, a lawyer representing two men who were denied concealed carry permits, avoided these questions and suggested that those should be answered at a different time and in a different case and instead suggested to the Justices that “carrying a firearm outside the home is a fundamental constitutional right.” Paul D. Clement would further add that this right was supported by 43 states and in those states were major metropolitan areas like Huston, Chicago, and Phoenix. 

New York State Pistol & Rifle Association v. Bruen is a Supreme Court case about the constitutionality of New York State’s May Issue concealed carry permit system. The New York State Pistol & Rifle Association believes that this system of laws restricts the right to bear arms beyond what the constitution and the Supreme Court currently allows for. 

The current May Issue permit system in New York makes it extremely difficult to obtain a concealed carry permit in the state of New York. The state’s laws are structured in such a way that you are not guaranteed to get a permit, hence its classification as a May Issue state, while most states have to give you a permit unless there are major disqualifying factors such as the applicant being barred from firearm ownership completely. 

If the Supreme Court were to side with the New York State Pistol & Rifle Association in this case, carry rights would be expanded for Americans across the country.

This expansion of carry rights would come in the form of Shall Issue permit systems becoming mandatory. States, like New York, that currently have May Issue systems would have to start giving more conceal carry permits to residents.

Notify of
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Gene Ralno
Gene Ralno
1 month ago

I know these judges are busy but they really should get out more, and read more ordinary news. They should know criminals already carry in public places and use them to commit crimes, occasionally in broad daylight. They should know New York’s laws have disarmed most citizens and visitors to the state. They should know millions of people use their privately owned firearms for self defense every year — but very few in New York.

1 month ago

The BIG question NOT being asked is: “Why are the second and Fifth amendments the only ones where it’s required to have a permit in order to exercise a RIGHT”? ERGO, why isn’t a permit required to speak, to vote, to remain silent or to have an attorney?

Fed Up With the Sell-Out
Fed Up With the Sell-Out
1 month ago

The citizen’s Right to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed.

What part of that don’t our “lawmakers” and courts understand?

What’s the count now in this country? Over 50,000 infringements?

You may also like