Federal court rules Second Amendment precludes denial of gun permit based on multiple arrests and dozens of traffic violation and license suspensions
Way back in 2008 when the US Supreme Court first recognized in Heller that the Second Amendment protected an an individual “right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home,” I started speculating about whether and how jurisdictions might try to build new gun regulations about this vague “law-abiding” descriptor from Heller. Could and would governments claim that persons with only misdemeanor convictions had no Second Amendment rights? How about persons with only traffic tickets or who have only been arrested but not convicted? Given that most Americans, in my experience, are guilty at some time of speeding or illegal parking or jaywalking or some other public order nuance, taking this “law-abiding” label very seriously might dramatically limit who has Second Amendment rights.
Of course, after Heller, the reach of the Second Amendment was litigated a lot in lower courts in a lot of setting. But this litigation has taken on a whole new chapter after last year’s Bruen ruling by SCOTUS clarified that text, history and tradition provided the proper test for sorting through the Second Amendment’s proper application. Notably, though, the Bruen ruling used the adjective “law-abiding” nearly two dozen times in the course of its reorientation of Second Amendment doctrine. Thus, Bruen arguably makes understanding this term in this context even more important for the future of constitutional gun rights.
In a couple of weeks, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in US v. Rahimi, which will address (at least) one aspect of how the landmark Bruen Second Amendment case applies to federal firearm possession criminalization based on the individual asserting gun rights. But a helpful reader made sure I did not miss a federal district court ruling from New York’s federal courts earlier this week that may put traffic scofflaws who love their guns at ease. This New York Times article, headlined “Traffic Tickets Are No Bar to Owning a Gun in New York City, Judge Rules,” provides a useful summary of the ruling and broader context:
The New York Police Department wrongly denied a Brooklyn man a firearm license because of his many traffic violations, a federal judge ruled Tuesday, a decision that could stop the city from considering moral character when deciding whether someone can have a gun.
The case in the Southern District of New York centered on Joseph Srour, a Brooklyn man rejected twice after he applied in 2018 to keep rifles, guns and shotguns in his home for protection. Mr. Srour challenged the department’s decision to reject his application based on the city’s administrative code, which allows a licensing agency, in this case the Police Department, to deny a firearm permit if it determines that an applicant lacks “good moral character” or for “other good cause.”
In his decision, Judge John Cronan, nominated to the bench in 2019 by then President Donald Trump, wrote that the department used “broad and unrestrained” standards when considering Mr. Srour’s case. “Because that unconstitutional exercise of discretion occurs every time a licensing official applies or has applied these provisions, they each are facially unconstitutional,” he wrote, referring to the “good moral character” condition cited by the Police Department….
The ruling by Judge Cronan, which is likely to be heard by the appeals court, could allow people with more serious records than Mr. Srour’s to own a gun if it stands, said David Pucino, legal director of the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. “It would be serious problem,” he said. “These kinds of decisions have the potential to cripple the ability of law enforcement and other regulating authorities to enforce the laws that are on the books. This is an attack on that.”…
Mr. Srour had no criminal convictions, but the New York police twice denied his application to keep firearms in his home based in part on his two arrests, 28 traffic violations, 24 license suspensions and six driver’s license revocations. He also had two criminal court summonses for creating a wake while operating a personal watercraft, according to the lawsuit he filed in 2022.
The circumstances surrounding Mr. Srour’s arrests, his failure to disclose them on his application and his poor driving history “portray a lack of good moral character and disregard for the law,” the city wrote in its notice rejecting Mr. Srour’s application. Judge Cronan wrote that those communications were not “models of clarity in explaining the precise legal grounds for denying his applications to possess firearms” and reflected “unfettered discretion.”
“Without doubt, the very notions of ‘good moral character’ and ‘good cause’ are inherently exceedingly broad and discretionary,” he wrote. “Someone may be deemed to have good moral character by one person, yet a very morally flawed character by another.”
Mr. Srour, 49, who sells baby cribs and mattresses, declined to comment on the decision because the case is still pending. His lawyer, Amy Bellantoni, called the ruling “well reasoned and legally sound.”
The full 48-page ruling in Srour v. NYC is available at this link.