Second Amendment Rights vs. NYC Weapons Charges: What You Should Know

Thanks for visiting Spodek Law Group, a second-generation criminal defense firm managed by Todd Spodek, with over 50 years of combined experience defending firearms cases throughout New York. The Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear arms – but New York has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation. NYC’s licensing requirements, permit systems, and prohibited weapons lists restrict gun ownership far beyond most states. When you face weapons charges in NYC, Second Amendment defenses face an uphill battle. Courts have consistently upheld New York’s restrictions as constitutional. But recent Supreme Court decisions – especially District of Columbia v. Heller, McDonald v. City of Chicago, and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen – are changing the landscape. Your looking at new opportunities to challenge NYC’s weapons laws.

The Supreme Court’s Second Amendment Jurisprudence

For decades, courts upheld nearly any firearms restriction. The Second Amendment was treated as a collective right related to militias, not an individual right to own guns. That changed in 2008.

District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)

The Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms for lawful purposes like self-defense in the home. DC’s total ban on handguns violated the Second Amendment.

Heller established that core Second Amendment protections apply to commonly used firearms for self-defense. But the Court also noted the right isnt unlimited – governments can prohibit felons and mentally ill from possessing firearms, prohibit carrying in sensitive places like schools, and impose conditions on commercial sales.

McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010)

The Court held that the Second Amendment applies to states through the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Chicago’s handgun ban violated the Second Amendment just like DC’s had.

After McDonald, state and local governments couldnt ban handguns outright. But they could still impose licensing requirements, permit systems, and restrictions on types of firearms.

New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022)

This is the game changer. The Court struck down New York’s “proper cause” requirement for concealed carry licenses. New York required applicants to show “proper cause” – a special need for self-defense beyond general public safety concerns. The Court held that’s unconstitutional.

Bruen established a new test for evaluating firearms regulations. When the Second Amendment’s plain text covers conduct – like carrying a handgun for self-defense – the government must justify the restriction by showing it’s consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.

No more balancing tests. No more “intermediate scrutiny.” The question is: does historical tradition support this restriction?

How Bruen Affects NYC Weapons Charges

Look, Bruen doesnt mean all NYC weapons laws are unconstitutional. But it creates new challenges to licensing schemes, banned weapons lists, and possession restrictions.

Concealed Carry Licensing

New York responded to Bruen by passing new legislation replacing “proper cause” with objective requirements – training, background checks, character references. But the law also expanded “sensitive places” where carrying is prohibited and required applicants to disclose social media accounts.

These new requirements face constitutional challenges. Is requiring social media disclosure consistent with historical tradition? Are the expanded “sensitive places” supported by history?

We’re defending cases where clients carried firearms in areas New York designates as “sensitive” – Times Square, public transportation, places of worship. Under Bruen, we challenge whether these locations are truly analogous to historical sensitive places.

Assault Weapons Bans

New York’s SAFE Act bans so-called “assault weapons” using a feature-based test. Are these bans constitutional under Bruen?

That depends on whether AR-15s and similar firearms are “in common use” for lawful purposes. Heller protected commonly used firearms. Millions of Americans own AR-15s. We argue they’re in common use, thus protected under the Second Amendment.

Courts are split. Some uphold assault weapons bans, finding historical support for prohibiting “dangerous and unusual weapons.” Others strike them down, finding AR-15s are common and historical restrictions dont support feature-based bans.

High-Capacity Magazine Restrictions

New York prohibits magazines holding more than 10 rounds. Under Bruen, is that constitutional?

We challenge it by showing: (1) magazines holding 11+ rounds are in common use, and (2) no historical tradition supports capacity limits. Colonial-era firearms had limited capacity due to technology, not law. Modern magazine restrictions lack historical analogs.

Courts are grappling with this. Some find magazine limits constitutional, citing public safety interests. But Bruen rejected balancing public safety against Second Amendment rights. History matters, not policy preferences.

Defending Weapons Charges Using Second Amendment

Second Amendment defenses face high bars. Courts defer to legislatures on public safety. But Bruen opened doors.

Challenging Licensing Requirements

New York requires licenses to possess handguns even in your home. Is that constitutional?

Heller suggested licensing requirements are permissible. But burdensome licensing that effectively denies Second Amendment rights violates the Constitution. We challenge licensing denials by showing the requirements are pretextual – designed to prevent ownership, not ensure safety.

Arbitrary Denials

NYC licensing authorities have discretion to deny applications based on “good moral character.” We challenge denials that rest on arbitrary grounds – decades-old arrests with no convictions, minor infractions, subjective character judgments.

Under Bruen, licensing cant be a backdoor prohibition. If authorities deny licenses for reasons unrelated to dangerousness, that violates the Second Amendment.

Prohibited Persons Challenges

Federal and state law prohibit felons, domestic violence offenders, and people with certain mental health adjudications from possessing firearms. Are these prohibitions constitutional?

Heller said yes – prohibiting felons is presumptively lawful. But Bruen requires historical analysis. We challenge prohibitions applied to non-violent felons, arguing historical tradition didnt permanently disarm people for non-violent offenses.

I’m defending cases where clients with decades-old non-violent felonies face weapons charges. We argue Bruen requires courts to examine whether historical tradition supports lifetime disarmament for these offenses.

NYC’s Sensitive Places Restrictions

New York law prohibits carrying firearms in “sensitive places” – schools, government buildings, places of worship, Times Square, public transportation, and more.

Bruen acknowledged sensitive places restrictions are constitutional if supported by historical tradition. Colonial America prohibited firearms in places like courthouses and polling places.

But NYC’s list is expansive. Times Square? Public transportation? Parks? Are these truly analogous to historical sensitive places?

Challenging Sensitive Places Designations

We challenge prosecutions for carrying in locations New York designates sensitive. Is a public park analogous to a courthouse? Is a subway analogous to a polling place?

Bruen requires more than superficial similarity. The historical restriction must be relevantly similar – same reasoning, same purposes. We argue NYC’s expansive list goes far beyond historical precedent.

Straw Purchase and Trafficking Defenses

Can you raise Second Amendment defenses to straw purchasing or trafficking charges?

Generally, no. The Second Amendment protects lawful possession and carrying. It doesnt protect illegal transfers or trafficking. Courts consistently hold that straw purchasing falls outside Second Amendment protection.

But we’ve raised Second Amendment challenges to the laws themselves. If a statute criminalizes conduct that’s constitutionally protected – like transferring firearms between family members – we argue it violates the Second Amendment.

What Spodek Law Group Does

We file motions to dismiss weapons charges based on Second Amendment violations. Post-Bruen, courts must apply strict historical analysis. We research historical firearm regulations to show modern restrictions lack historical support.

We challenge licensing denials by showing they’re arbitrary, discriminatory, or pretextual. Licensing cant be used to deny Second Amendment rights wholesale.

We challenge sensitive places prosecutions by showing the location isnt analogous to historical restrictions. Times Square isnt a courthouse. Public transportation isnt a polling place.

We defend prohibited persons by arguing lifetime disarmament for non-violent offenses lacks historical precedent. Bruen requires examining whether the restriction is consistent with historical tradition.

At Spodek Law Group, we’ve defended Second Amendment cases from licensing denials to trafficking charges. You can reach us 24/7 at our offices throughout NYC and Long Island. When NYC charges you with weapons offenses, Second Amendment defenses are stronger than ever – and we know how to use them.