The Supreme Court’s refusal on Monday to hear a challenge to New York State’s ban on carrying handguns is a disappointing decision for those of us who favor a robust reading of the Second Amendment. The case arose in Westchester County, where Alan Kachalsky and several other law abiding citizens were denied permits to carry a pistol. Their appeal offered a chance for the Nine to extend the rights vouchsafed in Heller, in which the justices had found that the Constitution required the District of Columbia to issue a permit to a retired security guard to keep a loaded pistol at home. The question Kachalsky in is whether the Second Amendment secures such a right outside the home and whether state officials can deny a license for want of “proper cause.”

The muteness of the high court on this question — it gave no reason for declining the case — can only increase the pressure for Congress to take action. It invites either a national gun license on a “shall issue” basis or a law at the federal level requiring all states to recognize pistol permits issued by other states. Or both. Feature the way it works with driver’s licenses, which aren’t even covered by the Bill of Rights. What is the logic of it not working this way with licenses to carry concealed weapons? Holders of driver’s licenses still have to obey the traffic laws in the states through which they are passing. Holders of gun permits would still have to obey local laws about for what guns can be used. But why should the Second Amendment right enjoyed by a law-abiding American from, say, Arizona evaporate when he crosses into New York.

This is not, after all, a debate about what Mayor Bloomberg likes to call “illegal guns.” Mr. Kachalsky wasn’t applying for a permit to carry an illegal gun. He was applying for the right to carry a gun within the law. In other words, he wanted to carry a legal gun. Whether he is permitted to exercise that right turns out in New York to rest on the individual judgment of licensing officers, who make a determination of whether he has proper cause to carry a weapon. How are they better at making that decision than Mr. Kachalsky? He is the one who has to assess his own needs. What would be the reaction if a state officer at the Department of Motor Vehicles were empowered to decide if a New Yorker has “proper cause” to drive a car?

We have little doubt that truculence among licensing officers — in New York and other states that have them — is part of the reason any gun regulation is running into headwinds in Congress. Even in the wake of the tragedy at Newtown, Congress has declined to ban so-called assault rifles. The latest reports are that it might also reject the idea of background checks. We can understand why. There is a suspicion in the country that any gun regulation is a stepping stone to the kind of ban that exists in New York State. Call it the Bloomberg backlash. Why should the Congress give the gun control camp any victory at all if neither Congress nor the Supreme Court is going to provide law-abiding citizens with meaningful protection from state efforts to curb their rights under the Second Amendment?