A federal judge at Albany has ruled that New York’s rule banning residents of other states from applying for licenses to carry firearms in the state is unconstitutional.

In Higbie v James, a United States district judge, Mae A. D’Agostino, ordered the state to allow non-residents to apply for permits to carry firearms and ruled that the state cannot refuse to accept applications from otherwise eligible persons who are not residents of New York or work in the state.

In the landmark case New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the Supreme Court struck down the state’s decades-old Sullivan law, which made it nearly impossible for law-abiding persons to carry a gun.

The Bruen decision requires all states to issue permits, but New York has made the process cumbersome for residents and all but blocked the ability entirely for out-of-state residents to obtain carry licenses. New York also does not accept or recognize permits issued by other states.

Three out-of-state permitted gun owners sued the superintendent of the state police, the sheriff of Rensselaer County, and the sheriff of Columbia County after being told they couldn’t apply for permits.

One of the plaintiffs, Joseph Harris, is a citizen of Massachusetts with a license to carry a firearm in his home state. He visits family in New York and wants to carry a gun for protection but was denied the right to apply because he did not work or own property in New York.

The suit called New York’s licensing scheme “an extreme outlier among the states” because at least 27 states don’t even require a permit to carry a concealed firearm in public. The suit also stated that most states that require a permit for concealed carry still allow open carry without a permit.

A gun rights organization, the Second Amendment Foundation, is involved in multiple similar cases across the country and welcomed the ruling.

“A key pillar of the right to keep and bear arms is the ability to carry in public for self-defense. Constitutional rights — like the right to carry — apply to all peaceable Americans across the entire nation,” the director of legal operations for the foundation, Bill Sack, tells The New York Sun. “They do not start and stop at state lines — even those state lines guarded by overzealous state legislatures.”

The case is expected to be appealed and eventually work its way to the Supreme Court to decide on national reciprocity for carry licenses.

The executive director of the Duke Center for Firearms Law, Andrew Willinger, agrees. “It’s possible to view decisions like this as the first step toward nationwide concealed carry reciprocity, though ultimately states like New York and California will vastly prefer to maintain control over out-of-state applicants rather than being required to recognize licenses issued in states with lower standards/qualifications,” Mr. Willinger says.

The Supreme Court delivered a mixed set of decisions for Second Amendment proponents in its previous session. It overturned a ban on bump stocks but upheld a ban on ghost guns. The court also ruled that the federal law prohibiting firearm possession by individuals subject to domestic violence restraining orders is constitutional.