The recent court decision against D.C.’s gun control laws could reach beyond well beyond one city. Seth Lipsky for the New York Post reports:
Short work was made of the question this week by US District Judge Frederick J. Scullin Jr. He struck down DC’s requirement that gun-permit applicants provide a “good reason” to own a firearm. And he set an aggressive schedule to speedily resolve the granting of a permit to plaintiffs.
It’s not yet clear whether DC and its police chief, Cathy Lanier, are going to appeal the district court ruling. It is clear, though, that the case will echo in New York and other cities that require a showing of need to carry a pistol.
…If Scullin’s judgment were imposed on New York — either by a higher court or Congress — it would render unenforceable the city’s demand that permit applicants show a good reason (usually a clear need for self-defense) before getting approved….
This is an irony for New York. The most progressive state is one of the most regressive when it comes to the Second Amendment. And it’s a far cry from New York’s roots; the state ratified the Constitution only on the condition that it would protect the right to bear arms. It carefully marked that condition in a famous statement put out in Poughkeepsie at the time the Constitution was ratified.
It asserted that the “people have the right to keep and bear arms.” It said nothing about them having to show good reason.
Read the full story HERE.