Despite the strong wording of, "shall not be infringed," the public safety component exists.
As the Ezell
Court instructs, it is not enough merely to raise the concern. It must be an identifiable and quantifiable concern.
In the Kachalsky
decision, the Judge relied upon certain legislative floor debates which purported to raise the public safety issue.
Finally, in 1982, during a floor debate regarding substantive changes to portions of the state handgun licensing scheme, Senator Franz Leichter, speaking regarding Section 400.00(2)(f)’s “proper cause” requirement, observed,
[W]e are not only talking about crime, which obviously is important, but we’re also talking about public safety. . . . [I]n this instance, it’s not only protecting a person from himself but it’s protecting innocent people who get shot every day because handguns are lying around, and that is something that should be of concern to all of us.N.Y. Senate Debate on Senate Bill 3409, at 2471 (June 2, 1987) (Tomari Decl. Exs. S(14)). Despite proposals to change the licensing scheme, Section 400.00(2)(f)’s “proper cause” requirement has remained. (State Defs.’ 56.1 ¶ 77.)
The quoted section above (document #80, pg. 52 - pg. 54 of the pdf), is just one of several quotes that the court used to justify its decision.
What is conspicuously absent in those quotes and within the the decision itself, is any quantification of that aspect over that of mere assertion.
We have seen this in several district court decisions. None as blatant as was this decision. So it is something that must be addressed, at the circuit level.
While public safety may not be the most important aspect, it is one that cannot be left unchallenged.