The case that can decide the fate of national carry rights has a hearing date. November 3rd, 2021 marks the day SCOTUS will begin to hear arguments in the case against New York’s law that requires citizens to show ‘Proper Cause’ in order to obtain a state carry permit.
With the majority of US states being ‘shall issue’, New York’s law and the various lower court sustainment’s of it have been the last legal bastion of the ‘may issue’ permit system where the state has full authority to deny a permit for any reason.
This system is ripe for abuse and has been used for legal cronyism and discrimination.
New York, however, maintains that the system is in the vested interest of the public safety and that making their citizens show a ‘proper cause’ (of which general self protection is not enough) keeps the citizenry safer and is not in violation of the 2nd Amendment…
Hogwash, but that is their story and they are sticking to it.
With the majority of states being ‘Shall Issue’ or more permissive in their permitting, the evidence is clear New York just doesn’t want to lose power. States like California who’ve had their gun control schemes shredded legally in recent years are also looking to this SCOTUS ruling with trepidation as their state ‘precedents’ for control are set to take a logical fall from grace and restore their citizens rights.
Why ‘Proper Cause’ must go
In short, it is an entirely subjective legal practice that encourages discrimination and favoritism under the thin guise of a ‘safety check’ by the state asking if somebody really needs a permit to carry. The state and its lackeys have total control over the bearing of arms practically in the state. Friends of the state will get their permits, ‘problematic’ persons for any sort of reason will be denied without objective criterial cause.
Got into an argument with your local commissioner over waste water or trash taxes or something, no permit for you. You are a ‘high risk’ now. Disagreed with the schoolboard on a decision they made, no permit now. Been found in any way, shape, or form disagreeable to current government powerbrokers? No permit. That is the reality of ‘proper cause’ permitting.
It isn’t because Y applicant was a felon or other disqualifying objective criteria, the state simply said he or she didn’t have ‘proper cause’ to get the permit.
This ‘proper cause’ is whatever the state wants it to be that day and for that individual.
A National Shall Issue Standard
The widest implication for this SCOTUS case is that we may finally get the biggest step yet towards a nationally reciprocal concealed carry system. To the states still under the ‘proper cause’ standards, they will finally get to enjoy Shall Issue criteria in their permitting. A standard that makes some sense. If you meet the simple criteria you are issued a concealed carry license, the State must justify any denial of license based upon the written and objective criteria.
If the nation becomes a Shall Issue rule by default, that levels the rules across the 50 states and codifies the right to bear arms outside the home for personal protection. Logically, recognition of permits between states takes on a more substantive meaning at that point as denial of another state’s permit constitutes denial of the constitutional right to bear arms on the person for protection.
National reciprocity is the logical means by which states can maintain a modicum of legal control and a liability waiver for non-residents who are carrying in the state. States can remove that requirement and go constitutional for both in and out of state residents, but for states that will be most influenced by a favorable ruling from SCOTUS (like New York, California, and Hawaii) those places are unlikely to embrace Constitutional Carry just because SCOTUS said.
This could be the largest 2A victory in over a decade and one that can pave the way for several more necessary ones on items like ‘assault weapon’ bans and magazines.
