BUFFALO, N.Y. — Among the rulings issued by the U.S. Supreme Court this week was one could impact New York gun laws.
The Supreme Court ordered a federal appellate court in Manhattan to re-evaluate a decision, which actually upheld much of New York's latest version of its concealed carry statute including one of its most controversial elements.
"When the Supreme Court tells them to review a decision, it’s a pretty good indication it has concerns with the decision made," Aaron Dorr of the New York State Firearms Association said. "It's certainly an instruction that we are happy to hear."
The law was challenged by Gun Owners of America (GOA).
"I think its a good win for GOA, and they are a very good organization," said Carrie Christman, a board member of the Shooters Committee On Political Education.
Latest legal chapter
It's the latest chapter in what has now become a multiyear battle between the state and gun rights advocacy groups, which have taken legal action on behalf of lawfully registered gun owners
Two years ago the U.S. Supreme Court struck down New York's original concealed carry permit law, which had been in effect for over 100 years.
It had required applicants to show "proper cause" for why they needed a concealed carry permit.
However, as Associate Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in the court's opinion in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, "We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need."
This prompted Gov. Kathy Hochul and the Democrat-controlled state legislature to hastily pass an updated law called the "Concealed Carry Improvement Act."
Enacted during a special session of legislature called by Hochul, It included a host of additional steps needed for law abiding, legally registered gun owners to take in order to obtain a concealed carry permit, such as firearms training, and further restricted where firearms could be carried.
And while it no longer required a permit applicant to show proper cause, they would be required to appear before an non-elected licensing officer who would determine if they were of "good moral character."
Gun owners accused the state trying to do an end run around the Supreme Court's decision by implementing a new impediment, that was at the same time ambiguous.
Dorr called the Governor's actions, which he interpreted as using language to circumvent the Supreme Court ruling, "the height of arrogance" and questioned whether many members of the legislature could themselves "pass a test where they could be judged of having good moral character."
For purposes of the law, it defines good moral character as “the essential character, temperament and judgment necessary to be entrusted with a weapon and to use it only in a manner that does not endanger oneself or others.”
"The first mistake is calling a firearm a weapon because weapons can also be anything from a knife to a rolling pin," Christman said.
When the law was challenged, a federal judge agreed with gun owners, striking down the "good moral character" test.
However, the state appealed to the Second Circuit in Manhattan, which reversed the trial court decision and upheld the good moral character requirement by noting "whether such a scheme is impermissibly discretionary cannot be decided before it has been implemented and brought before state courts."
While the Supreme Court, in ordering the second circuit to review its earlier decision, did not reverse it.
"But I also think it makes clear that efforts to circumvent the decision in the Bruen case won't stand," Dorr said.
Meanwhile, Christman found some significance to the Supreme Court's ordered review coming just before Independence Day.
"We fought for our independence and freedom including the right to bear arms, and people seem to have forgotten that," she said.