The opinion of the court was delivered by: Victor J. Alfieri, J.
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the printed Official Reports.
The applicant has applied for a change of her pistol permit to Unrestricted and Full Carry from Sportswoman-Residence. The applicant's Sportswoman-Residence permit was issued on December 2, 2002 as permit no. 7462. The permit allows the applicant to use and carry her weapon for any sports related undertakings such as; target shooting, hunting, fishing, hiking, camping as well as possession of the weapon in her home. This Court denied the applicant's request to expand the permit to Full Carry/Unrestricted by letter dated September 4, 2008. See Court's Exhibit No.1 in evidence. Thereafter, the applicant applied for a hearing, and on September 15, 2008 the Court received a letter from the applicant stating her reasons for the need of an unrestricted permit.
This Court set a hearing for December 2, 2008 and notified the following agencies, none of whom sent representatives to appear at the hearing; Rockland County District Attorney; Rockland County Sheriff; Rockland County Attorney; and Clarkstown Police Department. Mrs. Bastiani and her husband appeared at the hearing. The Court received sworn testimony from Mrs. Bastiani along with the assistance of her husband, Flavio.
The burden of establishing proper cause for the issuance of a full carry permit is placed upon the applicant. Kaplan v. Brattan, 249 AD2d 199 at 201. The issuance of a pistol permit is a privilege subject to reasonable regulation, and in order to receive a full carry permit the applicant must show a special need for self protection distinguishable from that of the general community. (Id), at 201. Even the "fact that one carries large amounts of cash or valuable articles or supplies in areas noted for criminal activity does not demonstrate per se a special need for self protection distinguishable from that of the general community of the person engaged in the same business or profession." Matter of Klenosky v. NYC Police Department, 75 AD2d 793, aff'd. 53 NY2d 685.
The issuance of a pistol permit for self protection in ones' home has recently been held by the U.S. Supreme Court to be a right protected by the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution:
There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms. District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S.Ct. 2783, at page 2799 (2008).
However, in so holding the Supreme Court also recognized that the individual right to bear arms is limited:
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th Century cases, commentators in courts routinely explain that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. [Citations omitted.] For example, the majority of the 19th Century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. (Id), at 2816.
Heller dealt with the case of an individual who sought to keep a weapon for self-protection in his home. The District of Columbia's law "totally banned handgun possession in the home." Id., at 2817. The District of Columbia claimed a "rational basis" for the statute to eliminate gun related accidents (id., at 2819 note 28), in furtherance of the legitimate governmental interest of gun control. Id., at 2821. The Supreme Court however held that the interests of the state were "accounted" for by the framers of the Bill of Rights,
[The Second Amendment] is the very product of an interest-balancing by the People...And whatever else it leaves to future evaluation, it surely elevates above all other interests the right of law abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home. Heller, id., at 2821. (Emphasis in original).
The Heller case, advanced by the applicant in support of her application is utterly distinguishable from the case at bar. The applicant is permitted to possess her weapon for many sports related undertakings in addition to possession in her home. Nothing in Heller grants the applicant more than what she already has.
In the opinion of this Court, Heller does not extend the right to bear arms as the applicant contends: to carry a weapon for any purpose at any place or time. Putting aside the question of whether the Second Amendment's "individual" right to bear arms is in fact extended to the individual states as a fundamental right, an issue not addressed by the Supreme Court, it is clear that even if that be the case, a regulatory scheme would not run afoul of the Heller Court's holding. Id., pages 2816-2817 and footnote 26. Rejecting the District of Columbia's claim that their regulation of weapons possession was a reasonable regulation, the Heller ...