”A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.“
— The Second Amendment
The United States may be facing its first sweeping change in federal handgun laws in nearly 70 years if the Supreme Court does not hear and overturn a recent decision by a U.S. appeals court.
Since 1936, the federal government has interpreted the Second Amendment as permitting militias (the National Guard, for example) to carry weapons. It has not previously extended that right to individuals, deferring instead to states on the issue of shotguns, rifles and handguns.
In New York, handgun owners must license themselves, their guns and apply for the right to carry it. Those requirements make sense in this state and provide police agencies with the legal tools necessary to go after illegal gun owners.
Handgun ownership is a complicated and impassioned issue in al 50 states. While it’s true that the vast majority of guns used in violent crimes are not properly registered, it is also true that a gun purchased for self-defense is far more likely to be stolen than used for its intended purpose.
There is no correlation between tougher laws for legally purchasing handguns and a reduction in the number of violent crimes, but that doesn’t mean it’s a bad idea, either. “Handguns for everyone” is hardly a motto New York, or any state, should aspire to realize.
What, if any ripple effect, could be seen in the drafting, interpretation and enforcement of gun laws if the Supreme Court fails to overturn the lower court’s decision is unknown. How much state-level lawmakers and judges would feel pressured — or in some states encouraged — to change their laws is a matter of pure speculation at this point.
As far as New York is concerned, we see no need to change, and especially loosen, requirements on handgun purchases. The state should be doing everything it can to ensure the people buying guns are doing so with legal intentions.
And the Supreme Court should carefully consider the implications of this decision on state legislators and the judges who interpret and enforce those laws. A decision by the nation’s highest court upholding an individual affirmation of handgun ownership might have few practical effects beyond the law’s narrow purview, the District of Columbia. But the implications — a tacit approval for looser gun laws — could foster a judicial mindset that produces some very bad decisions down the road.
