FPC Issues Brief Defending Its Win Against NY Carry Restrictions

The Firearms Policy Coalition is one of the many gun rights groups out there that seems to have stepped up their game while the NRA was embroiled in a fight for its very existence. It takes on a lot of fights in the courts and on social media, with some unconventional tactics on the latter.

Let’s just say I’m a fan.

In the courtroom, though, they’re notching plenty of wins, and that includes one against New York’s unconstitutional carry restrictions. Now, they’re defending that win as things move to the next level.

Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced that it filed its answering brief with the federal Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Christian v. James, an FPC Law case that challenges New York’s laws banning firearms on all publicly accessible private property without the express consent of the owner. 

These accelerated appellate proceedings closely follow the Western District of New York’s judgment in favor of the FPC plaintiffs just two months ago in January. This brief can be viewed at firearmspolicy.org/boron.

New York’s ban “implicates the plain text of the Second Amendment by regulating where firearms may lawfully be carried. And it cannot be reconciled with the historic principles underlying the Second Amendment,” argues the brief. “This Court already has held that the State is unlikely to be able to justify the law historically. The Court should now hold that its prediction was correct.”

“We are committed to putting an end to this immoral and unconstitutional law, whatever it takes, and this brief is an important step to that end,” said FPC President Brandon Combs. “This outrageous regulatory scheme simply cannot pass constitutional muster and the Second Circuit should hold as much without delay.”

This is one of what FPC refers to as their “high-impact strategic litigation program,” where they target particularly unjust laws and try to take them down so as to maximize personal liberty throughout the nation.

It’s a smart strategy, especially because the rulings rarely just affect the law in question.

While the Bruen decision did say it was constitutional to ban guns in certain “sensitive places,” it also warned against New York making the entire island of Manhattan a gun-free zone. However, the way New York responded adheres to the letter of that but not the spirit. It’s like they couldn’t understand the point Justice Clarence Thomas was trying to make there.

Further, let’s also note that no other right is considered prohibited on private property without the express permission of the owner. In all other cases, the presumption is that your rights are intact until and unless the owner says otherwise. You’re presumed to have free speech until you say something the owner doesn’t like and asks you to either stop or leave. You aren’t presumed to be unable to pray over your meal in a restaurant without the owner’s permission, either.

Why do guns get treated differently from other rights preserved in the Constitution?

The short answer is that they shouldn’t be. This is why Second Amendment rights are said to be treated as second-class rights, and that should end. FPC is clearly doing their part to make that happen.