AP Photo/Alan Diaz, File
It’s easy for us to forget just how many pro-gun individuals there are in ostensibly anti-gun states. For example, there are a lot of pro-gun people in New York state. Unfortunately, their voices are drowned out by the urban centers who have been bamboozled into believing gun control works.
However, one New York county has joined the pro-gun side in a Supreme Court case it feels directly impacts the state.
St. Lawrence County legislators voted 11-4 Monday night to file a legal brief supporting a case pending in U.S. Supreme Court filed by a gun rights group against New York City.
The vote followed a fairly lengthy debate among legislators, with supporters arguing the case is relevant to St. Lawrence County because it relates to protecting the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment right to bear arms.
The county agreed to get involved in a case brought by the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, Inc. against New York City for banning the transport of a licensed, locked and unloaded handgun to a home or shooting range outside of city limits.
Supporters argued that pistol permit restrictions in St. Lawrence County are similar to those faced by citizens in NYC, and the county has an obligation to speak up.
“I think morally, and ethically, we have an obligation to ask the Supreme Court to take a look at this issue in hopes they can remedy a problem that faces the citizens of this county,” said legislator James E. Reagen, R-Ogdensburg. “I think the right to petition our government is a right that is well established since the founding of the Republic.”
One Democrat on the board argued against the measure, claiming his issue wasn’t the gun rights side of the argument but that the county didn’t have legal jurisdiction.
To be honest, that might be a fair point.
Still, I think it’s good to see St. Lawrence County stepping up. It’s impacted severely by its gun control laws.
It seems that in the county, only one person can issue permits. A judge.
Unfortunately, the judge only wants to issue restrictive permits that only allows carrying while hunting or target shooting. Anyone wanting an unrestricted permit has to show extraordinary grounds for needing it.
Because the Bill of Rights is all about proving you need to do something.
No one is required to show a need to worship as they see fit. No one is required to show a need to petition the government for the redress of grievances. No one is required to show a need for due process of law. No one has to show a need to speak freely, either.
The word “need” doesn’t show up in the Bill of Rights based on my best recollection, so why does a single individual get to require a need to carry a firearm?
Clearly, the hope is that the Court will strike down “may issue” laws. Frankly, I hope for the same thing. I’ve heard from too many people over the years who have been denied their right to keep and bear arms because someone else figured they didn’t need it to hope otherwise.
I’m just glad to see someone in New York feeling the same way.