"Petitioner's Second Amendment Rights Are Not Dependent on Her Spouse's Acquisition

Reason ^ | 4/29/23 | Eugene Volokh

[CFW]

The case arose before Bruen, when New York required a showing of special need to get a license to carry a gun for self-defense. The petitioner had argued that she needed a gun because she and her husband would often carry substantial sums of cash for business, but the New York licensing authorities responded that she "failed to explain why her stated self-defense needs were not already adequately and independently addressed by her husband's recent acquisition of an unrestricted concealed carry license."

[CFW]

So the NY firearm licensing Board actually decided a woman's request for a concealed carry permit be denied because her husband already had such a permit. Talk about a sexist attitude! This is basically saying a woman has fewer rights than that of her husband and can and should require on him for protection from harm and thus had no 2nd Amendment rights of her own.

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

Even in the seventeen hundreds they did not believe that a free woman should be denied the right to be armed just because her husband was armed.

Just goes to show you can become so progressive you regress.

[Secret Agent Man]

The sex angle is irrelevant. They could assume the same thing if the roles were reversed.

Their assumption that the one spouse will always be around to protect the other spouse is nuts.

Their lack of foresight about that, plus perhaps the need to possibly provide cover for the other spouse, or perhaps have to defend themselves if their spouse is incapacitated, etc...

Second does that mean for police teams, one cop doesn’t need to be armed because the other cop will have a gun, while they both are on duty together?

[CFW]

Thankfully, The New York intermediate appellate court rejected that logic (Matter of DiPerna-Gillen v. Ryba, decided Thursday in an opinion by Justice Stan Prizker, joined by Presiding Justice Elizabeth Garry and Justices Michael Lynch, Molly Reynolds Fitzgerald and Eddie McShan). The court’s main point was that, given the decision in Bruen, which came down while the appeal was pending, petitioner had a constitutionally protected right to carry, even without a showing of special need.

[Fido969]

So, if she carries her husband in her pocket, she should be well-protected.

[Valpal1]

Leftists have no logic.

[Secret Agent Man]

Thats good.

Too many courts uphold these idiot laws requiring you to prove you “need” your 2A rights.

Its I have 2A rights and these laws infringe upon me exercising them. No one needs to prove special anything to exercise them.

Imagine having to prove you have special needs in order to exercise your right to vote.

[CFW]

“So, if she carries her husband in her pocket, she should be well-protected.”

Yeah, that’s why I carry my husband with me everywhere.

[DesertRhino]

If you are broke, live in a bad part of town and only want to protect your life... too bad. But bags of cash, you can have a gun, unless your husband has one already.

[CurlyDave]

So now NY has to issue her a license of her own, BUT:

1. It will be administratively delayed essentially forever, and

2. The law has now been changed as a response to NYSRPA v. Bruen and neither one of them can carry in any meaningful place.

[skr]

Even spouses who work and live together aren’t always around each other. And then there’s the possibility of a jammed gun or the one with the gun being incapacitated. That’s just two of many scenarios.

[krogers58]

Shockingly, there are some states which believe they can keep the old “may” issue laws, as opposed to the Supreme Court’s unambiguous standard of “shall” issue. Chicago is notorious for making people jump through hoops to obtain a CCW. This is why we need a nationwide CCW law. I can get a Massachusetts CCW, being from NH, but it takes over a year and costs $500/yr. Not even sure I’d take the chance of disassembling my firearm, locking it in a box, in my trunk, where Massachusetts law enforcement is concerned.

[PROCON]

RKBA Ping List

This Ping List is for all news pertaining to infringes upon or victories for the 2nd Amendment.

FReepmail me if you want to be added to or deleted from this Ping List.

More 2nd Amendment related articles on FR's Bang List.

[krogers58]

Even spouses who work and live together aren’t always around each other. And then there’s the possibility of a jammed gun or the one with the gun being incapacitated. That’s just two of many scenarios.

That's why, if your life depends on it, a revolver is the only choice. It's my bedside gun, along with others.

[alexander_busek]

but the New York licensing authorities responded that she "failed to explain why her stated self-defense needs were not already adequately and independently addressed by her husband's recent acquisition of an unrestricted concealed carry license."

Their assumption that the one spouse will always be around to protect the other spouse is nuts.

Absolutely true: Nuts!

Might as well ask why the fact that a bag of rice recently fell over in China wasn't addressed in her "petition!"

And must one really petition? Like: Grovel?

Regards,

[GingisK]

She should say, “My husband isn’t a very good shot”.

[smokingfrog]

What’s good for the gander is good for the goose.

[Does so]

+1

[Taxman]

The REAL question, is, “Why would ANY sentient person live in New York?”