Will New York Scrap ‘Character and Reputation’ From Licensing Standards Before SCOTUS Does?

The challenge to Maryland’s ban on so-called assault weapons isn’t the only high-profile 2A case that the Supreme Court could take up in the coming weeks. Last month a cert petition was filed with the Court in Antonyuk v. James, which is one of several lawsuits brought against the state of New York for its post-Bruen legislative temper tantrum. As the plaintiffs’ attorneys wrote in their petition:

Relying almost entirely on a few late-19th-century outlier laws rather than Founding-era practice, the [Second Circuit Court of Appeals] panel again affirmed NewYork’s requirement of “good moral character” as a precondition to public carry, along with most of its gun bans in all manner of nonsensitive public places. These holdings clearly contravene Bruen’s rejection of discretionary “suitability” assessments and warning not to declare all of Manhattan a “sensitive place.”

The state’s response to the petition is due on Wednesday, and whether to grant cert to Antonyuk will be debated in conference in the coming weeks. One New York legislator, however, is hoping to render at least a portion of the lawsuit moot by removing the state’s “character and reputation” language from carry permit applications. 

Rep. Eric Davanzo, R-West Newton, is circulating a co-sponsorship memorandum that would remove the character and reputation provision references on the License to Carry Firearms permit application as well as a requirement that an applicant include personal references on the application. 

… According to the Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA), “good moral character” means having the necessary temperament, judgment, and character to be trusted with a weapon and use it responsibly, without endangering oneself or others; essentially, demonstrating a responsible and law-abiding nature when it comes to firearm ownership. Critics have said that definition is too broad to provide enough guidance.

“The current language provides no definitions, standards, policies or limitations as to what constitutes a proper “character and reputation” necessary to qualify for a LTCF,” Davanzo wrote in his memorandum. “Under current law, a sheriff can unilaterally deny a LTCF application for a concealed firearm for “character and reputation” concerns or other “good cause.” Under my bill, an applicant who is wrongfully denied the right to a LTCF shall be entitled to attorney fees and costs in any action against the issuing authority.”

Imagine having to have the state sign off on your character and temperament before you could attend a religious service, write a letter to your elected officials, or rally in support of your enumerated rights. No court in the land would uphold those kinds of restrictions on our fundamental civil liberties, but according to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals it’s perfectly acceptable to precondition the exercise of your Second Amendment rights on passing a subjective review from licensing authorities that includes the use of character references. 

I commend Davanzo for his effort, but there’s virtually no chance that the Democrat-dominated Assembly is going to do the right thing and repeal these requirements. These lawmakers are, by and large, the same officials who voted to enact these unconstitutional provisions in the first place. Their Bruen response bill was a legislative middle finger to the Supreme Court in response to its decision striking down the state’s “may issue” carry laws, and it’s going to take five justices on the Court to undo the damage caused by the Democrats’ refusal to recognize the fundamental importance of our right to keep and bear arms.