Restrictions on Gun Ownership Rights
Although a person with a carry permit may, as a general rule, have a right to carry a weapon outside of his home, other laws prohibit law-abiding citizens with such permits from possessing a weapon in certain locales. For example, a person with a carry permit as a general rule is prohibited from possessing a weapon on the grounds of any school, college or university. The ban applies not just to handguns but to rifles and shotguns as well. However, in the past an exception to this rule was made for individuals who had written authorization from the educational institution to possess the weapon on school grounds. This exception would permit school teachers, for example, who otherwise were licensed to carry a concealed pistol to possess that pistol on school grounds if they had written authorization from the school district to do so. Given the recent spate of school shootings many advocated that schoolteachers be armed so as to protect their students in the event that they are attacked. Indeed, in Texas it is a routine for schoolteachers to carry sidearms with them in their schools. And, certainly, schoolteachers who previously served as police officers or members of the military would already have significant training in the use of firearms. However, realizing that school districts may permit certain teachers to be armed in order to protect their students, the legislature passed a law effective November 3, 2019 which specifically prohibits school districts from giving written authorization to schoolteachers to possess a weapon on school grounds. Schoolteachers who possess a pistol on school grounds will now be guilty of a felony even if they are otherwise authorized by the school district to possess that weapon on school grounds and even if they possess a carry permit and were former members of law enforcement or the military. The Texas model of arming certain teachers who already have extensive experience in the use of firearms either as former members of the military or law enforcement may not now be utilized in the state of New York.
In addition to the above-mentioned newly enacted restriction it is important to also keep in mind the numerous other restrictions that have long been imposed on individuals who wish to possess a firearm.
For example, although a license may not be required for one to possess a rifle or shotgun beyond a certain barrel length, if someone has been convicted of a felony or serious offense then it is a crime for him to possess such a weapon (note: serious offense is defined in P.L. 265.00 (17)). And it should be remembered that possession refers not only to actual possession such as someone holding a rifle in his hands but constructive possession as well. For example, if you are in a car while someone else possesses a rifle, even if you never touch the rifle, you may be deemed to be in constructive possession of it especially if you know that the rifle is in the car. The same would be true with respect to the presence of any firearm in a home. If you enter someone else’s home and the homeowner has a rifle in the house, then the law may consider you to be in constructive possession of that weapon while you are in that house even if you never have any physical contact with it whatsoever. And that is especially so if you know that a weapon is in the house. Accordingly, if a 20-year-old man is convicted of a felony or serious offense and he lives in his father’s house and the father has a collection of guns, then the father will have to remove all those guns from the house in order for his son to continue living in that house. The rule is applicable with respect to any felony conviction not just a felony conviction related to possession of a firearm. Accordingly, if someone is convicted of tax evasion as a felony, then he is precluded from possessing a rifle or shotgun that otherwise would not be illegal to possess without a license.
As the above paragraphs indicate, the restrictions placed by New York and other states on an individual’s right to own a gun are numerous and, in some cases, draconian. But there are times where the state governments go too far in restricting an individual’s right to bear arms. Chicago, Illinois passed an ordinance imposing an outright ban on the right of any individual to own or possess a gun in his home, a restriction which would have been anathema to the founding fathers. A citizen of Chicago wishing to purchase a weapon to protect himself in his home filed suit claiming that the restriction violated the Second Amendment’s guarantee of an individual’s right to bear arms. The Illinois courts ruled against the homeowner who then appealed to the United States Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court in the case of McDonald v. Chicago held that states may not categorically ban all individuals from possessing handguns in their homes. The nation’s highest appellate court based its ruling on the Second Amendment of United States Constitution which guarantees the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
The decision emphasized the basic right of people to possess a gun in their homes for purposes of self-defense. [This section is a work in progress and additional paragraphs are to be added]