You have to get a license to own a gun in NY?

[SilentStalker]

People from NY please help me out here. Over the last several weeks, I have heard from multiple people for multiple places, that you have to be approved and have a license to not just carry a gun but to even own one and have it in your house. Is that true? If so, how is this not in direct conflict of the second amendment? I would say without a doubt that this would be considered infringement. It's one thing to be required to have to have a permit to carry nuts its entirely another thing to have to have one to even possess a firearm of any kind. Any lawyers want to explain to me how this is not in direct defiance of the Bill of Rights?

 

[General Geoff]

Required for handguns, not long guns.

 

[gbran]

No license required even for us Californians.

 

[Old Dog]

OP, you've been a member of this forum for ten years and you've just now heard about this?

 

[Red Wind]

I believe it began with the Sullivan Act in 1911.

The Sullivan Act is a gun control law in New York State that took effect in 1911. Upon first passage, the Sullivan Act required licenses for New Yorkers to possess firearms small enough to be concealed. Possession of such firearms without a license was a misdemeanor, and carrying them was a felony. The act was named for its primary legislative sponsor, state senator Timothy Sullivan, a notoriously corrupt Tammany Hall politician.

For handguns, the Sullivan Act qualifies as a may issue act, meaning the local police have discretion to issue a concealed carry license, as opposed to a shall issue act, in which state authorities must give a concealed handgun license to any person who satisfies specific criteria, often a background check and a safety class.

 

[toivo]

General Geoff has got it -- only handguns require a permit to own. For long guns, there's no licensing unless you live in New York City.

Getting a pistol permit ranges from not too hard to almost impossible, depending on what county you live in. My county isn't too bad. The biggest pain is that each handgun you own has to be listed on your license, so there's a trip to the sheriff's office involved in every purchase. In my county it's a "walk-in, walk-out" deal, but some counties make you fill out an application and wait several weeks for each purchase.

Yeah, it's infringement. I'd leave if I didn't have an elderly mother and a pretty good job right here.

 

[MedWheeler]

It ain't just NY; there are many jurisdictions in which a permit to possess and/or purchase is required. In some states, an ID card identifying you as "an approved firearms owner", such as Illinois' FOID, doubles as a permit to purchase. In others, such as NC, one must acquire a purchase permit for each handgun bought. There are also many states/jurisdictions in which owned firearms are registered as well as the owner.

I'm not in any of the above, though my state requires a license to carry concealed, and does not permit open carry.

 

[Speedo66]

Since many states require registration/licensing of not just handguns, but all guns, NYS does not have the most stringent gun laws.

As noted, in NYS it's only handguns which may not be possessed without a license. NYC is another story, subject to a local administrative code long guns must be registered.

 

[Kaeto]

I believe it began with the Sullivan Act in 1911.

And the reason for it was so that Sullivan's political opponents would be unarmed and thus be unable to stop his shenanigans.

 

[mjones 59]

Tovio,
What county do you live in that's"walk in walk out"??
All the counties around me all have a lengthy process,
some up to a years wait.

 

[sota]

NJ is the same way.
Permit 2 Purchase for handgun.
FID card for long gun or pistol ammunition, with the latter being logged at the dealer at time of purchase.
No ID required (except for DL to verify age, iirc) for rifle or shotgun ammuniton.
* I have an iirc there because frankly I haven't bought ammo in-state in 7 years.

 

[tarosean]

Any lawyers want to explain to me how this is not in direct defiance of the Bill of Rights?

I am not a lawyer nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn last night...


Presser vs. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886)
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is a limitation only on the power of Congress and the national government, and not of the states.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/116/252/case.html

Hence why our firearm laws vary from state to state. some good, some not so good.

 

[toivo]

Tovio,
What county do you live in that's"walk in walk out"??
All the counties around me all have a lengthy process,
some up to a years wait.

Up to a year to add another handgun when you already have a permit? That's what I was talking about.

I'm in Ulster County. Getting your permit can take a long time, but once you've got it you can add new a new handgun by one trip to the sheriff's office. Some counties make you submit an application and wait several weeks for each new purchase.

 

[Frank Ettin]

....how is this not in direct conflict of the second amendment? I would say without a doubt that this would be considered infringement. It's one thing to be required to have to have a permit to carry nuts its entirely another thing to have to have one to even possess a firearm of any kind. Any lawyers want to explain to me how this is not in direct defiance of the Bill of Rights?

That is a question which would need to be decided by a federal court.

With regard to any existing or possible future governmental actions which might be applied to limit, restrict or prohibit activities associated with the keeping and/or bearing of arms, here's essentially how things work:

1. Any governmental action limiting, restricting or prohibiting activities associated with the keeping and/or bearing of arms is subject to judicial challenge.
   
   
2. In the course of deciding Heller (District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570 (United States Supreme Court, 2008)) and McDonald (McDonald v. City of Chicago (Supreme Court, 2010, No. 08-1521)), the rulings made by the United States Supreme Court on matters of Constitutional Law, as necessary in making its decisions in those cases, are now binding precedent on all other courts. Now the Supreme Court has finally confirmed that (1) the Second Amendment describes an individual, and not a collective, right; and (2) that right is fundamental and applies against the States. This now lays the foundation for litigation to challenge other restrictions on the RKBA, and the rulings on matters of law necessarily made by the Supreme Court in Heller and McDonald will need to be followed by other courts in those cases.
   
   
3. There is judicial authority going back well before Heller and McDonald for the proposition that constitutionally protected rights are subject to limited regulation by government. Any such regulation must pass some level of scrutiny. The lowest level of scrutiny sometimes applied to such regulation, "rational basis", appears to now have been taken off the table, based on some language in McDonald. And since the Court in McDonald has explicitly characterized the right described by the Second Amendment as fundamental, there is some possibility that highest level of scrutiny, "strict scrutiny" will apply, at least to some issues.
   
   
4. The level of scrutiny between "rational basis" and "strict scrutiny" is "intermediate scrutiny." To satisfy the intermediate scrutiny test, it must be shown that the law or policy being challenged furthers an important government interest in a way substantially related to that interest.
   
   
5. Whichever level of scrutiny may apply, the government, state or federal, seeking to have the regulation sustained will have the burden of convincing a court (and in some cases, ultimately the Supreme Court) that the regulation is acceptable under the applicable level of scrutiny.
   
   
6. Second Amendment jurisprudence is still in its infancy. Until Heller in 2008, it was still in doubt whether the Second Amendment would be found to describe an individual or collective right. Until McDonald in 2010, the law was that the Second Amendment did not apply to the States (United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876)). So the scope and extent of permissible regulation of rights described by the Second Amendment is still unclear.
   
   
7. The bottom line is that Second Amendment jurisprudence will need to mature over time as these sorts of issues get litigated.

 

[rondog]

I moved to Syracuse from Oklahoma, where I bought my handguns from want ads in the paper. Talk about culture shock! In NY, they won't even open a showcase up unless they see your pistol permit first.

Needless to say, I didn't stay there any longer than I had to. Which is a shame, it's a beautiful state and loaded with history. But the most oppressive state I've ever lived in, and not just gun-wise.

 

[Daveboone]

No license required for long guns outside of NY city, but there may be individual city requirements I don't know of....
Semi automatic rifles that meet state criteria for "assault rifles" can only be owned now if grandfathered and licensed as of about 5 years ago. You can not acquire any more, each firearm separately accounted for.
In my county, once you get your permit putting a new one on is a simple visit to the county pistol permit office. You they put it on while you wait, and then you can pick up your pistol, showing them the receipt from the county office and your permit.

As someone else pointed out, there are other much stricter state laws out there than NY. NY has allways had concealed carry permits, and even today some states will not issue any.

 

[SilentStalker]

^^^^That's ridiculous. And the fact that you have to have a license to even own a pistol in NYC, is infringement, IMO. i give it 20 years and all guns will be banned in some capacity or another. in 100 years it will all be history. Enjoy them while you can, I reckon.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...the fact that you have to have a license to even own a pistol in NYC, is infringement, IMO.....

It may be too bad, but your opinion on the question doesn't matter. What matters is the opinion of the courts.

The Founding Fathers assigned the role of deciding what the Constitution means and how it applies to the federal courts (Constitution of the United States, Article III, Sections 1 and 2):

Section 1.

The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish....​

Section 2.

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution,...​

The exercise of judicial power and the deciding of cases arising under the Constitution necessarily involves interpreting and applying the Constitution to the circumstances of the matter in controversy in order to decide the dispute. Many of the Founding Fathers were lawyers and well understood what the exercise of judicial power meant and entailed.

Furthermore, laws are presumed to be constitutional. The courts give deference to legislative acts and presume statutes valid and enforceable, unless/until unconstitutionality is determined. As the Supreme Court said in Brown v. State of Maryland, 25 U.S. 419 (1827), at 437:

...It has been truly said, that the presumption is in favour of every legislative act, and that the whole burden of proof lies on him who denies its constitutionality....

And much more recently in U.S. v Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000):

...Due respect for the decisions of a coordinate branch of Government demands that we invalidate a congressional enactment only upon a plain showing that Congress has exceeded its constitutional bounds. See United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S., at 568, 577_578 (Kennedy, J., concurring); United States v. Harris, 106 U.S., at 635. With this presumption of constitutionality in mind, we turn to the question whether §13981 falls within Congress' power under Article I, §8, of the Constitution....

So in the real world a statute is valid and enforceable unless and until it is found invalid by a court having appropriate jurisdiction.

 

[herrwalther]

I could not get out of NY fast enough. I was applying for my purchase permit in NY and got approval. Over 6 months after I moved to the south. 9 total months waiting. My parents pester me to move back. I will consider some New England states but will never reside in NY ever again.

 

[mikestone967]

Move one state towards the ocean, (Vermont!), and you won't need ANYTHING but to pass a NICS check!

No permit system for open or concealed carry.
No training requirements.
No legal Mumbo jumbo to deal with!

Vermont is a Constitutional Carry State.