Supreme Court Allows New York Ammunition Background Check To Take Effect

Justice Sonia Sotomayor denied a request from a gun store owner couple to overturn New York’s background check law for ammunition purchases one day before it went into effect. In response, Governor Kathy Hochul (D-NY) signed the Empire State Concealed Carry Improvement Act, following Justice Clarence Thomas’s 6-3 decision to overturn the state’s century-old restrictive gun permit system.

Sotomayor issued an order without comment denying the request for a stay of several provisions of the act.

Nadine and Seth Gazzola, a husband and wife team, filed a lawsuit arguing that the provisions of the CCIA would put them out of business unless the Supreme Court intervened.

This included requiring clients to pay for background checks on private gun sales. Nine additional plaintiffs who own gun stores were also named in the lawsuit.

The new initiative will be overseen by the New York State Police Department and funded by fees of $2.50 for ammunition purchases and $9 for gun sales, as reported by The Washington Examiner.

On September 1, certain provisions of the law went into effect, such as the requirement for dealers to keep physical or electronic records of gun purchases and sales documents.

Regulations existed prior to last year’s High Court decision. After being denied injunctive relief on January 18, this marked the second rejection from the high court for the Gazzola family.

Both a federal trial judge and a federal appeals court had previously refused to block these provisions before they sought relief from the Supreme Court. Justice Sotomayor presides over cases from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit.

In their petition for a writ of injunction, the lawyer representing the gun shop owners stated that the 2nd Circuit had yet to take any action on five lawsuits that were consolidated for oral arguments on March 20.

They drew attention to the fact that no decision had been made in response to an emergency motion submitted by the couple on August 29.

Thomas and Alito’s recommendation was issued on January 11, suggesting that plaintiffs reapply for relief at the Supreme Court if appropriate action from the 2nd Circuit is not taken within a reasonable timeframe regarding stays imposed on various lower court orders invalidating parts of CCIA.

Earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to issue an injunction against the state of New York’s updated concealed carry law which prohibits the carrying of firearms in “sensitive locations” while lower court proceedings continue.

This ruling followed their 6-3 decision in the summer that an earlier concealed carry statute had violated citizens’ Second Amendment rights.

“No justices dissented in the ruling, but Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas said in a statement that they believed the ruling was to ‘reflect respect’ for the appeals court that had previously let the law stay in effect, and did not ‘[express] any view on the merits of the case,’” Forbes noted in a summary of the ruling.

“Gun owners asked the Supreme Court to block the law after a district court judge previously blocked it from staying in effect, but the Second Circuit Court of Appeals then overruled that decision and let the law stand as the litigation against it moved forward,” the report noted further.

After the United States Supreme Court struck down a prior concealed carry law in June which required applicants to demonstrate “proper cause” to possess a gun, a new law was swiftly passed. This legislation provides requirements for obtaining a concealed carry license, as well as enacting certain guidelines and regulations concerning when firearms may be carried in public.

Firearms are not permitted in or near schools, churches, and hospitals-referred to as “sensitive” locations.

The legal implications of this New York law will now be examined by lower courts; however, it is likely that the U.S. Supreme Court will have to decide the merits of this case once again due to the opinion expressed by Justices Thomas and Alito indicating that Wednesday’s ruling does not address all aspects of this case.

In June, the Supreme Court issued a landmark decision in favor of the Second Amendment when it ruled 6-3 that New York’s concealed carry law was unconstitutional due to its restrictive nature.

Experts have indicated that this ruling is likely to result in successful challenges against other similarly prohibitive concealed carry laws found predominantly in blue states.

“This decision is a big deal,” FiveThirtyEight noted in the wake of the ruling. “Previously, the court had only said that the Constitution protected the ability to have a gun inside the home for self-defense. In that decision, which came down in 2008, the justices didn’t rule on how guns carried outside the home could be regulated. It took almost 15 years for the justices to come back to that question, but now they have.”

The Second Amendment “protect[s] an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home,” wrote Justice Clarence Thomas in the majority opinion for Thursday’s ruling. As such, FiveThirtyEight continued, statues like the one in New York, “which required people who wanted a license to carry a concealed handgun in public to show they have a good reason, are no longer allowed.”

ICYMI: Temporary Restraining Order Issued Against NM Gov’s Concealed Carry Ban