MILESFORTIS

Uh Oh…New York Supreme Court Rules the State’s Red Flag Confiscation Law is Unconstitutional

Gosh, this hasn’t been a good week for America’s gun control industry. First Governor Ron DeSantis signed permitless concealed carry into law, tipping the balance in favor of states that don’t require a government-issued permission slip to keep and bear arms. That was traumatizing enough for the forces of civilian disarmament.

Today, however, another blow has landed. New York’s Supreme Court — which for some damned reason is the second highest court in the Empire State — has ruled that the state’s due process-free red flag firearm confiscation law is unconstitutional. Go figure.

The ruling, written by Judge Craig Stephen Brown, makes it clear how an individual’s civil rights are violated under the current law . . .

Without the requirement of any input from a medical or mental health expert, the Court is required to make a determination of whether “the respondent is likely to engage in behavior that would result in serious harm to himself, herself, or others in…section 9.39 of the mental hygiene law.” Under Mental Hygiene Law, a person’s liberty rights cannot be curtailed unless a physician opines that a person is suffering from a condition “likely to result in serious harm.” Further, in order to extend any such curtailment of liberty beyond 48 hours, a second doctor’s opinion must be obtained and such opinion must be consistent with the first doctor’s opinion.

Absent from New York’s Red Flag Law is any provision whatsoever requiring even a single medical or mental health expert opinion providing a basis for the order to be issued. New York’s Red Flag Law, as currently written, lacks sufficient statutory guardrails to protect a citizen’s Second Amendment Constitutional right to bear arms.

In other words, the New York legislature, in its unyielding zeal to disarm as many citizens as possible, didn’t give the slightest thought to the protection of a targeted individual’s civil rights when they wrote their red flag gun confiscation law. The only thing they cared about was grabbing the guns.

As a result, using a quote from McDonald v. Chicago, Judge Brown concluded . . .

As a result, using a quote from McDonald v. Chicago, Judge Brown concluded . . .

“Second Amendment rights are no less fundamental than…Fourth Amendment rights (the right to liberty), and must be afforded the same level of due process and equal protection.” Accordingly, this Court joins the Monroe County Supreme Court in holding that, “under CPLR 63-a, in order to pass constitutional muster, the legislature must provide that a citizen be afforded procedural guarantees such as a physician’s determination that a respondent presents a condition ‘likely to result in serious harm,’ before a petitioner files for a [temporary extreme risk protection order] or [extreme risk protection order].

Since this standard is required to prevent a respondent from being deprived of fundamental rights under the Mental Hygiene Law, then anything less (as contained in 63-a) deprives a citizen of a fundamental right without due process of law.” This Court declares [New York’s Extreme Risk Protection Law] to be unconstitutional. 

You can read the full ruling here.

The New York Supreme Court, then, has concluded exactly what we and every other gun rights supporter have been arguing since the first red flag confiscation order was passed in California. They deprive gun owners of their basic, constitutionally protected civil right to due process, frequently issuing ex parte confiscation orders for which the gun owner wasn’t even present to defend himself.

Again, today’s ruling was issued by New York’s Supreme Court. The highest court in New York is the Court of Appeals. New York Attorney General Letitia James’ minions are no doubt already hard at work drafting their filing for an appeal, so this battle is far from over. Still, it’s a positive step and one that will upset the state’s rabid gun-grabber community, lead by none other than Governor Kathy Hochul, to no end…and who could quibble with that?

The Footnote to End All Gun Control

The United States of America is founded on the presumption of innocence. After the Supreme Court’s landmark New York State Pistol Rifle Association v. Bruen Supreme Court decision, there is now a presumption that gun laws are unconstitutional unless the government can prove there was a similar law at the time of the ratification of the Second Amendment.

According to the Bruen decision, the interest balancing test does not apply to Second Amendment cases. The courts can only rely on the original text, history, and tradition of the Second Amendment.

This decision put most anti-gun politicians and advocates in a precarious position. Almost no gun control existed at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification.  With the combination of little to no supporting historical evidence and without leniency from the previous interest balancing test, gun control advocates will have a much harder time of successfully passing legislation that will defeat SCOTUS’s new test. The anti-gun side had to find something in history that would save gun control laws.

Anti-gun state and gun control advocates usually point to the Sir John Knight’s Case that challenged the Statute of Northampton. According to the anti-gun side, the law forbids carrying a firearm in public. Still, most legal scholars agree that it banned the carrying of a gun in public only if the intent is to terrify the people. Without many other examples of gun control laws, the anti-gun side must base their arguments on this case.

Unfortunately for the gun control side, the Supreme Court addressed the Sir John Knight’s Case and others like it.

According to Footnote 11 of the Bruen decision, whenever multiple interpretations can be taken from a case, the Supreme Court will favor the interpretation that favors the Second Amendment. This demand puts the burden on the state to prove their analog is consistent with the original text, history, and tradition of the Second Amendment.

Footnote 11 reads:
“The dissent discounts Sir John Knight’s Case, 3 Mod. 117, 87 Eng. Rep. 75, because it only “arguably” supports the view that an evil-intent requirement attached to the Statute of Northampton by the late 1600s and early 1700s. See post, at 37.

But again, because the Second Amendment’s bare text covers petitioners’ public carry, the respondents here shoulder the burden of demonstrating that New York’s proper-cause requirement is consistent with the Second Amendment’s text and historical scope. See supra, at 15.

To the extent there are multiple plausible interpretations of Sir John Knight’s Case, we will favor the one that is more consistent with the Second Amendment’s command.”

Because SCOTUS referenced the case in a footnote doesn’t mean the state will not try to use Sir John Knight’s Case. We have seen states argue that they can use laws from the ratification date of the Fourteenth Amendment to defend their anti-gun statutes. The Fourteenth Amendment was ratified shortly after the Civil War ended when states passed laws to prevent formerly enslaved people from getting firearms. Some courts might even accept these arguments, but it is delaying the inevitable.

SCOTUS laid down a straightforward test for gun laws. If a law is inconsistent with the plain text, history, and tradition of the Second Amendment, it must be thrown out. This new test puts the burden on the states to prove that their law is compatible with the Second Amendment.