It’s encouraging that the Court blocked the intrusive social media provisions, but just as intrusive are the processes needed to confirm someone is ‘of good moral character,’ which the Court has inexplicably chosen to uphold,” Paredes said.
“Frustratingly, much of this Court’s opinion reads like an insubordinate rebuke of the Supreme Court, which is a disgrace and cannot be allowed to stand. We are weighing action at the nation’s High Court.”The panel judges defended their decision to uphold the “good moral character” clause, arguing that it aligns with the nation’s historical traditions of gun regulation. They clarified that the definition of “character” in the “Concealed Carry Improvement Act” serves as an indicator of potential danger, assessing whether an applicant is likely to pose a threat to themselves, others, or public safety.
The ruling acknowledges the broad consensus that preventing dangerous individuals from possessing lethal weapons is a fundamental part of the nation’s tradition of firearm regulation.
New York Attorney General Letitia James welcomed the court’s decision to leave intact the provisions of the gun law deemed “critical” for ensuring the safety of New Yorkers