New York City has agreed to pay $10,001 to a man after it settled a case. The city refused to issue any permits to him that are needed to purchase firearms.
Joseph Garofalo applied for two licenses to possess and purchase firearms. One permit was for a Premise Residence handgun license, and one was for a rifle/shotgun license. The New York Police Department (“NYPD”) License Division denied both applications. He appealed both denials but lost both appeals. The NYPD claimed that the man lacked the needed “good moral character” to have a gun. Mr. Garofalo was not prohibited during his application period or since.
Mr. Garofalo was the subject of a protective order in the past, which he violated. The violations included contacting his ex-wife. Also, he was arrested in the past for domestic violence but was not convicted of any crime. He was not the subject of any protective orders at the time of his application denials for the firearms. These reasons are not the ones that the NYPD used to determine he was not of “good moral character.” The fact that Garofalo didn’t disclose the arrest or the previous protective order was why the NYPD issued the denials over his permits.
The “good moral character” clause of the New York law is concerning to many in the gun community. It allows the government to deny a permit solely on subjective means. The Supreme Court’s Bruen decision says that the Second Amendment is not a second-class right and must be treated like any other constitutionally protected right. The Bruen opinion also stated that any “may issue” permitting scheme is inherently unconstitutional. New York claims their scheme is “shall issue” and not “may issue.” However, allowing subjective denials might be unconstitutional. Many gun rights advocates and many legal scholars claim that the scheme runs afoul of Bruen.
Recently, a court in Massachusetts ruled that a permitting scheme cannot be subjective. Since “good moral character” is subjective, it probably wouldn’t stand up to constitutional scrutiny. The Massachusetts case has been referenced through motions of supplemental authority in several instances across the country. New York City is most likely aware of the case and its results.
After the denial, Mr. Garofalo sued the city in state and federal court. He claims that New York City violated his Second and Fourteenth Amendments. He also states the law is “arbitrary and capricious.” The federal court was decided to be the correct jurisdiction because the federal court system has jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” The Second Amendment claim was that the city was interfering with his right to bear arms—the Fourteenth Amendment challenge deals with the Equal Protection Clause.
Some speculate when New York City realized they would not win the case and that it could destroy the entire law, they decided it was better to settle the case. The city agreed to pay $10,001 to the man for violating his rights. New York City doesn’t admit any wrongdoing in the settlement, meaning their law can continue. Even though this is a loss for the city, a good percentage of New York gun owners would have preferred the case to go the distance to give it a chance to knock down the law.
About John Crump
Mr. Crump is an NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed people from all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons, follow him on X at @crumpyss, or at www.crumpy.com.
