ALTHOUGH THE HELLER CASE (District of Columbia,et al., v Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008)), IS POTENTIALLY A TREMENDOUS WIN FOR ALL LAW-ABIDING GUN OWNERS, AND FUTURE GUN-OWNERS, THE SUPREME COURT LEFT OPEN THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THE SECOND AMENDMENT PROHIBITION AGAINST THE INFRINGEMENT OF THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS APPLIES TO THE STATES. In 2008, the United States Supreme Court, in a historical decision, held that THE SECOND AMENDMENT OF THE US CONSTITUTION applies to the individual. Before this decision, the Court essentially maintained that the 2nd Amendment was framed by the Founding Fathers in order to guarantee the governments' right to form a militia. Before the Heller case, there was no individual right to keep and bear arms in America. Although many mistakenly believed that the Second Amendment provided such a right, until the US Supreme Court rendered its interpretion of this constitutional amendment, the right was exclusively granted to the government.   THE PROBLEM WITH THE HELLER CASE: Soon after the Heller case was decided, the lower federal Courts held that the US Supreme Court's decision DID NOT APPLY TO THE STATES. Essentially, the decisions within the lower federal Courts have held that the HELLER case ONLY prohibits the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT from infringing the Second Amendment rights of the individual. (Of course, in common sense terms, this makes NO SENSE, as the District of Columbia- a party to the Heller case-- is the seat of the federal government, but it is NOT the federal government). In any event, until the US Supreme Court clarifies this issue, the Heller case will have no impact upon the gun licensing within New York State. THE SUPREME COURT AGREES TO CLARIFY THIS ISSUE. Fortunately, for all American civilians, the United State Supreme Court has agreed to hear another case in which it will presumably clarify the issue of the SECOND AMENDMENT PERTAINING TO THE STATES. When that happens, I believe that many things will change within the realm of handgun licensing within New York City and New York State.    WHAT CHANGES WE MAY SEE ONCE THE US SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT THE SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS DOES INDEED APPLY TO THE STATES- WHICH ESSENTIALLY MEANS THAT NO STATE CAN INFRINGE UPON YOUR SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS.    Before making a statement on this issue as it relates to NYC/NYS, let me preface my comments by stating: even with this history making case, and the follow-up soon to come, no changes will be immediate, and any changes will still be hard fought.     Currently, in New York State, the judiciary has held that owning a gun within this jurisdiction is A PRIVILEGE, NOT A RIGHT.  As a consequence of this firmly entrenched notion, the statutorily designated handgun licensing officer has almost boundless power when it comes to deciding who should be issued (or retain) a handgun license, and who should be denied.  Of course, the Courts have held that the power is NOT unbridled, however, much of this is mere lip service intended to create the illusion that we live in a system where there are working and viable checks and balances.    In any event, once the Heller case is found to be applicable to the states, NYS will NO LONGER be able to rely upon the notion that gun ownership is a PRIVILEGE NOT A RIGHT.  And, as you might imagine, this will potentially have quite an impact upon the licensing officers across the state.  The heretofore untethered power of the statutitoriy designated licensing officer will now be curtailed.    The Heller case made it clear that certain prohibitions would be acceptable, even in the face of the holding in Heller.  That is, that convicted felons and the mentally ill would still be barred from gun ownership.  In addition,  the Heller case did not thoroughly address the issue of "rational" regulations or gun licensing, per se.  Keep in mind, the original challenge in Heller arose out of the District of Columbia's ban on guns.  There has never been a ban on owning handguns within this jurisdiction. However, the licensing scheme as it exists, particularly within the City of New York, grants the Police Commissioner a vast degree of discretionary power. What does that mean exactly?  Here are just a few absurd examples of the denials received by three separate law firm clients over the years:    Too many residents Failure to establish head of household Too many changes of employment in the last two years    These are obviously the most extreme examples.  However, when the issue of applicability to the states is resolved by the US Supreme Court, these reasons for disapproval will never been seen again.