Group of Non-Residents Challenge NYC Law Limiting Carriers to One Gun

Plaintiffs residing outside of New York are challenging a Manhattan regulation that limits carriers to a single firearm. The challenge was raised in the District Court of Southern New York.

The case Hendrick et al. v. New York City was filed on September 11 in federal court. This case raises the question on whether or not the City of New York may limit non-resident concealed carry handgun license holders to being able to carry only one firearm. New York City requires non-resident license holders to register one, and only one, handgun that they may carry under their license.

Provisions in New York City law mandate certain storage requirements are met for license holders to register more than one handgun to their license. Because non-residents don’t live within New York, or the City proper, they are precluded from putting more than one firearm on their license. The challenge raises both Second Amendment arguments as well as those of equal protection.

Individual plaintiffs in this challenge include: Brad Hendrick, Christopher Amalfitano, Erin K. Amalfitano, Richard Rocca, and Roger Restaino. There’s no organizational plaintiff in Hendrick v. New York City and the members of this challenge are represented by the Law Office of Mirel Fisch.

“While the City permits New York State residents who were issued Carry and Special Carry licenses to register two handguns as a matter of right and any number of additional handguns as a matter of course upon a routine showing of safe storage, it categorically prohibits Plaintiffs and a class of similarly situated non-residents who have been issued Non-Resident Carry Licenses from registering even a second handgun, solely because they reside outside New York State and have been issued Non-Resident Carry Licenses,” the complaint says.

The filing goes on to state that each of the plaintiffs are already licensed to carry a handgun in New York City for self-defense. Per the filing, the City’s rule states that “requests to add more than one (1) handgun to a license shall not be approved.” The complaint argues that this regulation is “not upon any consideration related to firearms, safe storage, or the licensee’s qualification” and that it “serves no public-safety purpose.”

For the reasons explained, plaintiffs assert that the rule “infringes upon non-resident licensees’ Second Amendment right to keep and bear ‘Arms’ and burdens citizens of other States in the exercise of that fundamental right.”

The factual allegations of the suit state that the conduct Hendrick et al. wish to engage in “falls within the Second Amendment’s plain text,” therefore it’s presumptively protected by the Constitution. Because of that, it’s the burden of the City of New York to prove a historical analogue to their regulation exists.

“Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ proposed conduct—keeping and bearing more than one handgun by registering additional handguns and choosing among those handguns for lawful carry and self-defense—falls within the Second Amendment’s plain text,” the complaint states. “Plaintiffs do not seek to carry more than one handgun at a time; they seek to have more than one lawfully registered handgun available and to choose which registered handgun to bear for self-defense on a particular occasion.”

The licensing schemes in New York and New York City are both arduous and likely beyond the scope of what the High Court was thinking about when it forced the Empire State into a shall-issue status. Burdens to apply for and receive such permits likely go against the holdings in NYSRPA v. Bruen. This disproportionate lack of equal protection between resident and non-resident license holders should be low-hanging fruit even in the federal courts in New York.

Hendrick could be an integral piece of litigation that chips at the way some states treat non-resident carriers. With the country staring at 29 permitless carry states and other states allowing some level of permitless open carry, restrictions that jurisdictions like New York, New Jersey and Massachusetts place on non-residents are beyond laughable.

One thing that’s for certain, the more the anti-liberty jurisdictions clamp down and go against the High Court’s orders, the harder they’re going to be spanked when honest opinions do come down. Granted, it’s a numbers game; New York officials know that the High Court can’t take all the cases they see. But, they’ve already liberated over 80 million potential carriers because the Empire State doubled down on Bruen.