Bruen: NYC Premise Licences Are Unconstitutional

[Cavalier Knight]

Knight v. City of New York (1:22-cv-10755)

(NYPD) Although Knight contends that there is no “need for two licenses” nothing in Bruen, Heller, or McDonald prevent the City from requiring gun owners to obtain multiple licenses, one for the home and one to carry in public, so long as the licensing regime does not allow for the denial of a license “based on a perceived lack of need or suitability.”

This court avered “nothing in Bruen, Heller, or McDonald prevent the City from requiring gun owners to obtain multiple licenses, one for the home and one to carry in public.” However, this is prohibited by both Heller and Bruen.

Justice Thomas: We have little difficulty concluding that it does. Nothing in the Second Amendment’s text draws a home/public distinction with respect to the right to keep and bear arms. As we explained in Heller, the “textual elements” of the Second Amendment’s operative clause— “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”—“guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.”​

​

This definition of “bear” naturally encompasses public carry. Most gun owners do not wear a holstered pistol at their hip in their bedroom or while sitting at the dinner table. Although individuals often “keep” firearms in their home, at the ready for self-defense, most do not “bear” (i.e., carry) them in the home beyond moments of actual confrontation. To confine the right to “bear” arms to the home would nullify half of the Second Amendment’s operative protections.​

See, Case # 2: ECF # 40, 46 & 47: All Case Files Dropbox: cknight.pw/kvnyc

CourtListener Case Files

 

[Saltwater60]

What is the point in doing this? It will just screw us again as it has already screwed me. My wife was finally ready to get her permit and the CCIA BS happened and now she doesn’t want to do the extended training. I said then we will look to get a premise permit but my county requires all applicants to take the 16+2 hour training and she won’t do that. She wanted to get the premise permit to hold onto my guns in case I die so my kids could get them. That’s not worth $700 and tons of time and effort to her so it is what it is. This will accomplish nothing and those that have premise permits will be forced to jump through hoops to get full carry permits, wait years, and be forced to turn in their guns in the meantime. They will not make it easy and there are much greater issues to fight IMO.

 

[pshift]

After reading this, a friend of a friend is extremely pleased that they got a "Special Carry" CCW from NYPD. No prior LEO experience or significant business interests. They work with the general NYC public and felt a need to carry concealed in certain neighborhoods. I even saw the proof that they received a NYC "SPecial Permit". Yup, they paid the fees and took the training.....

Maybe the NYPD is finally realizing that as law abiding citizens, they will not subject us to the degree of scrutinity like before once all of the requirements (infringements) have been met?

 

[Saltwater60]

After reading this, a friend of a friend is extremely pleased that they got a "Special Carry" CCW from NYPD. No prior LEO experience or significant business interests. They work with the general NYC public and felt a need to carry concealed in certain neighborhoods. I even saw the proof that they received a NYC "SPecial Permit". Yup, they paid the fees and took the training.....

Maybe the NYPD is finally realizing that as law abiding citizens, they will not subject us to the degree of scrutinity like before once all of the requirements (infringements) have been met?

Realizing or being forced?

 

[Cavalier Knight]

What is the point in doing this? It will just screw us again as it has already screwed me. My wife was finally ready to get her permit and the CCIA BS happened and now she doesn’t want to do the extended training. I said then we will look to get a premise permit but my county requires all applicants to take the 16+2 hour training and she won’t do that. She wanted to get the premise permit to hold onto my guns in case I die so my kids could get them. That’s not worth $700 and tons of time and effort to her so it is what it is. This will accomplish nothing and those that have premise permits will be forced to jump through hoops to get full carry permits, wait years, and be forced to turn in their guns in the meantime. They will not make it easy and there are much greater issues to fight IMO.

Did you read any of it?

 

[Saltwater60]

Did you read any of it?

I read your summation but other than that no. It will not open on my phone. If I’m wrong please enlighten me as I assume you’re the guy in the lawsuit based on names.

 

[Cavalier Knight]

I read your summation but other than that no. It will not open on my phone. If I’m wrong please enlighten me as I assume you’re the guy in the lawsuit based on names.

JUSTICE Thomas: The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not “a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.” We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need. That is not how the First Amendment works when it comes to unpopular speech or the free exercise of religion. It is not how the Sixth Amendment works when it comes to a defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him. And it is not how the Second Amendment works when it comes to public carry for self-defense…​

​

JUSTICE Alito concurring: … Much of the dissent seems designed to obscure the specific question that the Court has decided, and therefore it may be helpful to provide a summary of what we have actually held… today’s decision … holds that a State may not enforce a law, like New York’s Sullivan Law, that effectively prevents its law-abiding residents from carrying a gun for [self-defense].​

“A State may not enforce a law, like New York’s Sullivan Law, that effectively prevents its law-abiding residents from carrying a gun for [self-defense].” Bruen prohibits issuing a state Residence Premise License (state RPL) that “effectively prevents its law-abiding residents from carrying a gun for [self-defense].”

Knight intends to cancel his state RPL and transfer the (4) handguns on his state RPL to his state Carry License (state CL) but 38 - R.C.N.Y. § 5-25 (d)(4)(i) prohibits transferring more than (2) handguns to a state CL. If Knight were to cancel his state RPL the (2) remaining handguns would be confiscated by the NYPD License Division (NYPD LD) to be destroyed. This constitutes a taking of Knight’s personal property without just compensation in violation of due process. Knight only requires a state CL and asks this court why is he prohibited from canceling his state RPL, transferring all (4) of his handguns to his state CL, and adding any new handguns he intends to acquire, possess, and carry in the future to his state CL.

Step (2) of Bruen requires Defendants to provide historical analogues to support the regulations of 38 - R.C.N.Y. § 5-25 which allows the issuance of a state RPL that prohibits the carrying of any arms and a state CL that prohibits the acquisition, possession, and carrying of more than (2) handguns. At step (1) of Bruen the plain text of the 2nd Amendment presumptively protects Knight’s conduct in the acquisition, possession, and carrying of handguns publicly for self-defense. Knight’s 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms is a pre-existing right that cannot be granted or taken away by Defendants issuing or canceling a state license.

A state RPL prohibits the carrying of arms and a state CL prohibits the acquisition, possession, and carrying of more than (2) handguns in violation of the right to keep and bear arms. Both licenses prohibit conduct presumptively protected by the plain text of the 2nd Amendment. Defendants are subjecting Knight to the deprivation of his rights, privileges, and immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, and shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress. Knight has pleaded multiple plausible violations of 42 - U.S.C. § 1983 the 2nd Amendment, and the 14th Amendment.

Whereas “a State may not enforce a law, like New York’s Sullivan Law, that effectively prevents its law-abiding residents from carrying a gun for [self-defense]” This court avers that Defendants can enforce 38 - R.C.N.Y. § 5-25 (d)(4)(i) and continue issuing a state RPL that “effectively prohibits its law-abiding residents from carrying a gun for self-defense” which as-applied and facially violates the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

Justice Thomas: Applying that new and more stringent standard to the New York proper-cause requirement, Justice Thomas found that the challengers’ desire to carry a handgun in public for self-defense fell squarely within the conduct protected by the 2nd Amendment. The amendment’s text does not distinguish between gun rights in the home and gun rights in public places, Thomas observed. Indeed, he suggested, the 2nd Amendment’s reference to the right to “bear” arms most naturally refers to the right to carry a gun outside the home.​

​

“The amendment’s text does not distinguish between gun rights in the home and gun rights in public places.” Murdock v. Pennsylvania prohibits Defendants from converting a liberty into (2) licenses, and charging (2) fees, by splitting the 2nd Amendment right into (1) state RPL to keep arms and (2) a separate but not equal state CL to bear arms that is as-applied and facially unconstitutional.​

“No state shall convert a liberty into a license, and charge a fee, therefore.” See, Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943).​

Justice Thomas: We have little difficulty concluding that it does. Nothing in the Second Amendment’s text draws a home/public distinction with respect to the right to keep and bear arms. As we explained in Heller, the “textual elements” of the Second Amendment’s operative clause— “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”—“guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.”​

​

This definition of “bear” naturally encompasses public carry. Most gun owners do not wear a holstered pistol at their hip in their bedroom or while sitting at the dinner table. Although individuals often “keep” firearms in their home, at the ready for self-defense, most do not “bear” (i.e., carry) them in the home beyond moments of actual confrontation. To confine the right to “bear” arms to the home would nullify half of the Second Amendment’s operative protections.​

Justice Thomas concurred that “to confine the right to ‘bear’ arms to the home would nullify half of the Second Amendment’s operative protections.” A state RPL is a “restricted type of license” that “confines the right to ‘bear’ arms to the home nullifying half of the 2nd Amendment’s operative protections.” A state RPL prohibits the bearing of any handguns on that license at any time, for any reason, whatsoever as-applied, and facially strikes at the core of the 2nd Amendment right.

 

[Acer-m14]

 

[Saltwater60]

JUSTICE Thomas: The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not “a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.” We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need. That is not how the First Amendment works when it comes to unpopular speech or the free exercise of religion. It is not how the Sixth Amendment works when it comes to a defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him. And it is not how the Second Amendment works when it comes to public carry for self-defense…​

​

JUSTICE Alito concurring: … Much of the dissent seems designed to obscure the specific question that the Court has decided, and therefore it may be helpful to provide a summary of what we have actually held… today’s decision … holds that a State may not enforce a law, like New York’s Sullivan Law, that effectively prevents its law-abiding residents from carrying a gun for [self-defense].​

“A State may not enforce a law, like New York’s Sullivan Law, that effectively prevents its law-abiding residents from carrying a gun for [self-defense].” Bruen prohibits issuing a state Residence Premise License (state RPL) that “effectively prevents its law-abiding residents from carrying a gun for [self-defense].”

Knight intends to cancel his state RPL and transfer the (4) handguns on his state RPL to his state Carry License (state CL) but 38 - R.C.N.Y. § 5-25 (d)(4)(i) prohibits transferring more than (2) handguns to a state CL. If Knight were to cancel his state RPL the (2) remaining handguns would be confiscated by the NYPD License Division (NYPD LD) to be destroyed. This constitutes a taking of Knight’s personal property without just compensation in violation of due process. Knight only requires a state CL and asks this court why is he prohibited from canceling his state RPL, transferring all (4) of his handguns to his state CL, and adding any new handguns he intends to acquire, possess, and carry in the future to his state CL.

Step (2) of Bruen requires Defendants to provide historical analogues to support the regulations of 38 - R.C.N.Y. § 5-25 which allows the issuance of a state RPL that prohibits the carrying of any arms and a state CL that prohibits the acquisition, possession, and carrying of more than (2) handguns. At step (1) of Bruen the plain text of the 2nd Amendment presumptively protects Knight’s conduct in the acquisition, possession, and carrying of handguns publicly for self-defense. Knight’s 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms is a pre-existing right that cannot be granted or taken away by Defendants issuing or canceling a state license.

A state RPL prohibits the carrying of arms and a state CL prohibits the acquisition, possession, and carrying of more than (2) handguns in violation of the right to keep and bear arms. Both licenses prohibit conduct presumptively protected by the plain text of the 2nd Amendment. Defendants are subjecting Knight to the deprivation of his rights, privileges, and immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, and shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress. Knight has pleaded multiple plausible violations of 42 - U.S.C. § 1983 the 2nd Amendment, and the 14th Amendment.

Whereas “a State may not enforce a law, like New York’s Sullivan Law, that effectively prevents its law-abiding residents from carrying a gun for [self-defense]” This court avers that Defendants can enforce 38 - R.C.N.Y. § 5-25 (d)(4)(i) and continue issuing a state RPL that “effectively prohibits its law-abiding residents from carrying a gun for self-defense” which as-applied and facially violates the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

Justice Thomas: Applying that new and more stringent standard to the New York proper-cause requirement, Justice Thomas found that the challengers’ desire to carry a handgun in public for self-defense fell squarely within the conduct protected by the 2nd Amendment. The amendment’s text does not distinguish between gun rights in the home and gun rights in public places, Thomas observed. Indeed, he suggested, the 2nd Amendment’s reference to the right to “bear” arms most naturally refers to the right to carry a gun outside the home.​

​

“The amendment’s text does not distinguish between gun rights in the home and gun rights in public places.” Murdock v. Pennsylvania prohibits Defendants from converting a liberty into (2) licenses, and charging (2) fees, by splitting the 2nd Amendment right into (1) state RPL to keep arms and (2) a separate but not equal state CL to bear arms that is as-applied and facially unconstitutional.​

“No state shall convert a liberty into a license, and charge a fee, therefore.” See, Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943).​

Justice Thomas: We have little difficulty concluding that it does. Nothing in the Second Amendment’s text draws a home/public distinction with respect to the right to keep and bear arms. As we explained in Heller, the “textual elements” of the Second Amendment’s operative clause— “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”—“guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.”​

​

This definition of “bear” naturally encompasses public carry. Most gun owners do not wear a holstered pistol at their hip in their bedroom or while sitting at the dinner table. Although individuals often “keep” firearms in their home, at the ready for self-defense, most do not “bear” (i.e., carry) them in the home beyond moments of actual confrontation. To confine the right to “bear” arms to the home would nullify half of the Second Amendment’s operative protections.​

Justice Thomas concurred that “to confine the right to ‘bear’ arms to the home would nullify half of the Second Amendment’s operative protections.” A state RPL is a “restricted type of license” that “confines the right to ‘bear’ arms to the home nullifying half of the 2nd Amendment’s operative protections.” A state RPL prohibits the bearing of any handguns on that license at any time, for any reason, whatsoever as-applied, and facially strikes at the core of the 2nd Amendment right.

Thanks and that could make things interesting.

 

[JB93]

How can we as New york gun owners start fighting for our rights?

 

[Cavalier Knight]

How can we as New york gun owners start fighting for our rights?

Well I already have as the 2 license scheme is directly affecting me so its ripe to be challenged.

 

[Acer-m14]

but my MS13 buds have ..


never mind ..

 

[mk10]

The November 9 conference transcript is a perfect example of how a pro se litigant loses spectacularly and sets gun rights back for everyone. Knight has some cringe worthy moments where he appears to concede that restrictions on the carrying of more than one gun at a time are okay--although he does try to walk those statements back, albeit poorly.

The second amendment doesn't say "... to keep and bear Arm...", it says "... to keep and bear Arms...", with 'Arms' notably being plural.

 

[Cavalier Knight]

The November 9 conference transcript is a perfect example of how a pro se litigant loses spectacularly and sets gun rights back for everyone. Knight has some cringe worthy moments where he appears to concede that restrictions on the carrying of more than one gun at a time are okay--although he does try to walk those statements back, albeit poorly.

The second amendment doesn't say "... to keep and bear Arm...", it says "... to keep and bear Arms...", with 'Arms' notably being plural.

Thank you.

 

[Grimscale]

but my county requires all applicants to take the 16+2 hour training

I thought the training aspect was not enforced north of Westchester? Didn't Eyebrows declare that in an attempt to moot a lawsuit?
What County in Western NY is requiring the egregious and un-Constitutional "training requirement" to get a permit?

“No state shall convert a liberty into a license, and charge a fee, therefore.” See, Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943).

This should have ended any and all "license" requirements in ANY State of the Union.
Yet here we are, with even more burdensome "requirements" being enacted on a Right.

 

[Cavalier Knight]

I thought the training aspect was not enforced north of Westchester? Didn't Eyebrows declare that in an attempt to moot a lawsuit?
What County in Western NY is requiring the egregious and un-Constitutional "training requirement" to get a permit?



This should have ended any and all "license" requirements in ANY State of the Union.
Yet here we are, with even more burdensome "requirements" being enacted on a Right.

Sir you understood the assignment.

 

[Truebeliever]

I thought the training aspect was not enforced north of Westchester? Didn't Eyebrows declare that in an attempt to moot a lawsuit?
What County in Western NY is requiring the egregious and un-Constitutional "training requirement" to get a permit?



This should have ended any and all "license" requirements in ANY State of the Union.
Yet here we are, with even more burdensome "requirements" being enacted on a Right.

Downstate counties like NYC, Long Island Westchester are not the same permit process as the rest of the state. It’s not a renewal but a new application each time so there is no grandfathering the training requirement as it is upstate .

 

[Drinkthekoolaid]

I like saltwater was in the process of helping my wife get her premises permit so she could legally train with my pistols inside nys, possess them at our residence and defend herself and kids if I was not around. She isn't currently interested in going through all the hoops of getting her full unrestricted.

NY ruined that and made it impossible to be a legal "casual" pistol user.

 

[JB93]

Well I already have as the 2 license scheme is directly affecting me so its ripe to be challenged.

Why we get together as gun owners and hold protest, or sue these politicians?

 

[thughes]

I like saltwater was in the process of helping my wife get her premises permit so she could legally train with my pistols inside nys, possess them at our residence and defend herself and kids if I was not around. She isn't currently interested in going through all the hoops of getting her full unrestricted.

NY ruined that and made it impossible to be a legal "casual" pistol user.

So let me get this straight: You guys are now complaining about the elimination of a multi-tier permitting scheme?

I thought all along that you have been bitching about the "premises" vs "target/hunting" vs "full carry" multi-tier scheme that has been the de facto standard?

Man, I just can't keep this stuff straight anymore.

BTW: Constitutional Carry resolves all these problems.

 

[Drinkthekoolaid]

So let me get this straight: You guys are now complaining about the elimination of a multi-tier permitting scheme?

I thought all along that you have been bitching about the "premises" vs "target/hunting" vs "full carry" multi-tier scheme that has been the de facto standard?

Man, I just can't keep this stuff straight anymore.

BTW: Constitutional Carry resolves all these problems.

No. That's not what im saying.

The downstate system is totally idiotic and this will likely be an improvement for them. However as messed up as NY is it's essentially 2 different systems for upstate and downstate. Which further makes this more maddening And confusing.

I think (unless I'm wrong which happens regularly) is that with the elimination of the premise permit, it's now ONLY full unrestricted or nothing.

My wife is not interested in taking the ridiculous course and spending hundreds of dollars on full unrestricted carry because she doesn't plan on carrying. She only wants to be able to legally use my pistols at ranges in NY state and be able to legally use my pistols in self defense while at home, and be able to legally retain my pistols in the event I die unexpectedly.

NY stopped that with the CCIA. it's now full unrestricted license or no license.

I am understanding this ruling to mostly affect downstates laws which are even more confusing and I don't have the brainpower to try to understand how convoluted they are and I never plan to go downstate so it's not something I want to spend 10 seconds trying to comprehend how stupid it is to need 2 different lisences in NYC for pistols and how having one actually makes the other worse and you can lose pistols while converting from one to the other.

And I'm 100% in support of constitutional Carry.

 

[Cavalier Knight]

So let me get this straight: You guys are now complaining about the elimination of a multi-tier permitting scheme?

I thought all along that you have been bitching about the "premises" vs "target/hunting" vs "full carry" multi-tier scheme that has been the de facto standard?

Man, I just can't keep this stuff straight anymore.

BTW: Constitutional Carry resolves all these problems.

What he said.

 

[JB93]

Why we get together as gun owners and hold protest, or sue these politicians?

Definitely unconstitutional . I am not versed in politics but how can these politicians just make these unconstitutional laws and there be no repercussion. what can gun owners do to try and reverse this crap?

 

[Drinkthekoolaid]

Definitely unconstitutional . I am not versed in politics but how can these politicians just make these unconstitutional laws and there be no repercussion. what can gun owners do to try and reverse this crap?

Hello fellow gun enthusiasts....

 

[Saltwater60]

I thought the training aspect was not enforced north of Westchester? Didn't Eyebrows declare that in an attempt to moot a lawsuit?
What County in Western NY is requiring the egregious and un-Constitutional "training requirement" to get a permit?



This should have ended any and all "license" requirements in ANY State of the Union.
Yet here we are, with even more burdensome "requirements" being enacted on a Right.

It’s for any county and for anyone with a carry permit in NYS now. The upstate downstate thing is only for recertification or renewal. In downstate they renew permits and once renewed you need to have the training in order to do that.

 

[Truebeliever]

No. That's not what im saying.

The downstate system is totally idiotic and this will likely be an improvement for them. However as messed up as NY is it's essentially 2 different systems for upstate and downstate. Which further makes this more maddening And confusing.

I think (unless I'm wrong which happens regularly) is that with the elimination of the premise permit, it's now ONLY full unrestricted or nothing.

My wife is not interested in taking the ridiculous course and spending hundreds of dollars on full unrestricted carry because she doesn't plan on carrying. She only wants to be able to legally use my pistols at ranges in NY state and be able to legally use my pistols in self defense while at home, and be able to legally retain my pistols in the event I die unexpectedly.

NY stopped that with the CCIA. it's now full unrestricted license or no license.

I am understanding this ruling to mostly affect downstates laws which are even more confusing and I don't have the brainpower to try to understand how convoluted they are and I never plan to go downstate so it's not something I want to spend 10 seconds trying to comprehend how stupid it is to need 2 different lisences in NYC for pistols and how having one actually makes the other worse and you can lose pistols while converting from one to the other.

And I'm 100% in support of constitutional Carry.

No, they didn’t stop it. I know cops who got just the premise permit then carry on LEOSA .

 

[Drinkthekoolaid]

No, they didn’t stop it. I know cops who got just the premise permit then carry on LEOSA .

I've called the Erie county office they are not accepting them since CCIA.

Guess my wife doesn't benefit from being in the privileged special society of police members she just a regular citizen.

 

[Truebeliever]

I've called the Erie county office they are not accepting them since CCIA.

Guess my wife doesn't benefit from being in the privileged special society of police members she just a regular citizen.

I’m just saying some places were still issuing the premise permits . Not about carrying . The licensing authority has nothing to do with the LEOSA part. Just a loophole . With LEOSA , retired officers can carry without permission from local or state licensing authority with they can get a trainer qualified to train police officers to qualify the retiree. But what they are doing to trainers in CA they have done to police trainers in NY. They have limited them ina similar way .
A lot of those trainers won’t requal a retired officer unless they have a permit hence why some retired cops are getting the premise permit instead of the 18 hour course.
But unlike a NYS carry permit , a LEOSA carrier has to requal once every twelve months .

 

[tgenec86]

My wife is not interested in taking the ridiculous course and spending hundreds of dollars on full unrestricted carry because she doesn't plan on carrying. She only wants to be able to legally use my pistols at ranges in NY state and be able to legally use my pistols in self defense while at home, and be able to legally retain my pistols in the event I die unexpectedly.

Don't for a second think that Whorechul and her lackeys didn't think this through very well. To go to two full work days of training, plus range time, and the expense was absolutely deliberate to discourage anyone from applying.

 

[Drinkthekoolaid]

Don't for a second think that Whorechul and her lackeys didn't think this through very well. To go to two full work days of training, plus range time, and the expense was absolutely deliberate to

100% clear 2nd amendment rights suppression.


Imagine if you had to go through comparable hoops to prove you were competent, literate and informed enough to vote?! Hah!

Of course they know they are suppressing law abiding gun rights. That's the plan