Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court leaves New York law requiring ‘good moral character’ to carry handguns in place
CNN ^ | Apr 7, 2025 | John Fritze

Posted on 04/08/2025 3:29:12 AM PDT by where's_the_Outrage?

The Supreme Court declined Monday to decide whether a New York law that requires residents to have “good moral character” to carry a handgun is constitutional, leaving in place most of the state’s ban on carrying weapons in “sensitive places,” such as schools, parks and theaters.

The decision is a victory for New York officials and gun control groups, who have been attempting to approve or defend gun prohibitions in the wake of a blockbuster 2022 Supreme Court precedent that widely expanded the ability of Americans to carry guns in public. The New York law in question in the case was a response to that decision.

The court didn’t explain its reasoning and there were no noted dissents.

The state’s law requires residents to show “good moral character” to obtain a firearm license. The new law defined that term to mean “having the essential character, temperament and judgement necessary to be entrusted with a weapon and to use it only in a manner that does not endanger oneself or others.”

The law also set aside several “sensitive” locations where carrying weapons is banned. New York included government buildings, schools, hospitals, stadiums and Times Square in the list of covered spaces. Whether that approach can survive court scrutiny is being closely watched by other states.

(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Government
KEYWORDS: 2a; guncontrol; rulesoutnypd; rulesoutscotus; safespace
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-40 next last
The law also set aside several “sensitive” locations where carrying weapons is banned. New York included government buildings, schools, hospitals, stadiums and Times Square in the list of covered spaces.

So if carry is banned in these places who is responsible to ensure safety?
1 posted on 04/08/2025 3:29:12 AM PDT by where's_the_Outrage?
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: where's_the_Outrage?

Of course they will define any Trump supporter as not having good moral character.


2 posted on 04/08/2025 3:36:18 AM PDT by volare737 (Diversity is something to be overcome, not celebrated. )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: where's_the_Outrage?

The 2A died the second Schumer sent that nut job with a gun to feckless Kavanaugh’s house.


3 posted on 04/08/2025 3:38:09 AM PDT by Behind Liberal Lines
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

how is this not infringement?


4 posted on 04/08/2025 3:44:16 AM PDT by SteveH
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: where's_the_Outrage?

On what planet is safety ensured?


5 posted on 04/08/2025 3:49:42 AM PDT by gundog (The ends justify the mean tweets. )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: where's_the_Outrage?

> The state’s law requires residents to show “good moral character” to obtain a firearm license. <

Any law that vague should be instantly struck down. And by a 9-0 decision.

After all, would the Supreme Court uphold a law that says all bad people should be executed? I think not.


6 posted on 04/08/2025 3:51:06 AM PDT by Leaning Right (It’s morning in America. Again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: where's_the_Outrage?

Ct has a similar requirement. Part of the extensive requirements to apply for a permit is three letters of reference. I wrote them myself and had my golf buddies sign off. Ridiculous.


7 posted on 04/08/2025 3:52:26 AM PDT by DeplorablePaul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: where's_the_Outrage?

Is this the same as going backwards from “shall issue” to “may issue” depending or not whether the concealed carry applicant is a friend of Dems in high places, etc?


8 posted on 04/08/2025 3:57:14 AM PDT by desertsolitaire (China )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: where's_the_Outrage?

I’m glad I don’t have to prove “good moral character” to post here on FR!


9 posted on 04/08/2025 4:04:42 AM PDT by Gay State Conservative (Import The Third World,Become The Third World)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: where's_the_Outrage?

The petition for certiorari sought review of an interlocutory appeal of a preliminary injunction. Doubtful this Supreme Court was going to go for that on a Second Amendment case. Tactical boo-boo for the plaintiff’s attorneys.

The case is still. being addressed in the lower courts. Once it is decided there, I believe the USSC will take up the case.


10 posted on 04/08/2025 4:05:19 AM PDT by Fury
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DeplorablePaul
My license here in the Gay State (Massachusetts) is up for renewal in a few months. I recall being required to have two people vouch for me for my first application (before the Bruen decision) but if asked again I'm gonna refuse. And if I'm denied I'm gonna try to file a Federal lawsuit.
11 posted on 04/08/2025 4:10:38 AM PDT by Gay State Conservative (Import The Third World,Become The Third World)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: where's_the_Outrage?

I wonder if they would be OK with a law that says a Supreme Court member can only serve during “good moral character”?
I’m sure they wouldn’t find it overly broad and highly subjective.


12 posted on 04/08/2025 4:20:34 AM PDT by rottweiller_inc (Lupus urbem intravit. Fulminis ictu vultures super turrem exanimat. )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gay State Conservative

You could move to SC, a constitutional carry state. Get a license and pass a background check and you’re good to go. Despite liberal hysterical predictions, there hasn’t been a noticeable increase in shootings here.


13 posted on 04/08/2025 4:21:51 AM PDT by DeplorablePaul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: where's_the_Outrage?

They simply declined to take the case. They didn’t affirm anything no matter how hard CNN is trying to spin it.


14 posted on 04/08/2025 4:35:28 AM PDT by FLT-bird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: where's_the_Outrage?

Looks like NY is wanting to be the next hot spot for shooters. They now know that there is a low chance of people defending themselves.


15 posted on 04/08/2025 5:04:34 AM PDT by Mlheureux
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fury; All

The petition for certiorari sought review of an interlocutory appeal of a preliminary injunction.


Exactly so. The Supreme Court doesn’t like to take cases which are in process. This is much more of a procedural decision instead of a determination of the Constitutional question.


16 posted on 04/08/2025 5:06:54 AM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Who gets to decide what “moral” is?

Is the Muslim fundamentalist decision maker’s definition of “moral” exactly the same as the trans-rights activist?


17 posted on 04/08/2025 5:11:22 AM PDT by uranium penguin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: uranium penguin

Who gets to decide what “moral” is?


That is one of the big reasons the law is being challenged.

The Supreme Court decided to allow the lower courts to make that decision before they would look at the law. There are many other cases in the pipeline as well.


18 posted on 04/08/2025 5:19:45 AM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: where's_the_Outrage?

But the criminals can keep their guns!


19 posted on 04/08/2025 5:23:14 AM PDT by AZJeep (sane )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: where's_the_Outrage?

“good moral character”?
Like looters, rampaging terrorist orgs, muggers, robbers and antifa?

NY voters- tell me again why voting for ANY democrat is a good thing...?


20 posted on 04/08/2025 5:40:32 AM PDT by 13Sisters76 ("It is amazing how many people mistake a certain hip snideness for sophistication. " Thos. Sowell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-40 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson