I previously wrote about the latest New York gun law passed after the Court’s ruling in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen and how it follows a long line of legally flawed legislative measures in the area. It did not take long. On Thursday, federal District Judge Glenn T. Suddaby issued a temporary restraining order against a substantial part of the law, including barring the provisions previously discussed as presumptively unconstitutional.
New York Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul promised such legislation within an hour of the release of Bruen. The Concealed Carry Improvement Act passed 43-20. While I noted that the law “has some elements likely to pass constitutional muster,” it followed the same pattern of past laws in creating an easy target for gun rights advocates.
It is hard not to see that listing as an obvious effort to do precisely what Hochul said: to recreate the ban by including virtually every location as a “sensitive area.”
Suddaby barred the limits on carrying guns in recreational settings, areas where alcoholic beverages are consumed, and other venues. That includes locations like Times Square. As expected, he preserved the limits for public or private educational facilities, polling places, government administrative buildings, permitted special events, and public meeting places.
Once again, it is baffling why New York voters continue to enable this type of leadership. New York routinely opts for legislation that offer immediate political benefits while causing long-term precedential damage. It is reckless and cynical, particularly when two justices (Roberts and Kavanaugh) have signaled their willingness to accept reasonable limits. Instead, Gov. Hochul and others have once again assembled the same circular firing squad of new, easily challengeable legislation.
The matter will now go to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which has proven amiable to limits on the Second Amendment. It has also been reversed in major cases like Bruen. This could repeat that pattern and give the gun rights advocates another great opportunity to expand on Second Amendment protections.
The case is Antonyuk v. Hochul, No. 1:22-CV-0986 (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York).
“Here’s our plan. We create massive gun free zones. Then we let the violent crazies out. Rinse and repeat.Eventually, we got em all!”
And then what any American choosing to have a beer has to first choose his rifle? Bill shit. Americans can have both!
Alcohol overconsumption is a red flag for firearms carrying. Petty arguments escalate and inhibitions are lowered. Im ectremis, the PFC ( part of the brain that weighs consequences) is shut down.
People who are completely sober have murdered. People under the influence of intoxicants have not murdered. Your argument is invalid.
That dam constitution.
Poor Kathy, got what every dimocRAT who supports gun grabbing deserves!
Just virtue signaling by the Dems. They know what the Constitution says when they do it. Democrats are scum.
Several cities in Colorado have also recently passed local ordinances that defy the Bruen decision. The city councils conspired with the Bloomberg “Mom’s Demand Action” group to do this, with the Bloomberg group providing the exact ordinance language to the cities. In fact, the Boulder City Council boasted of this cooperation on their website.
These included ordinances banning concealed carry in a list of “sensitive places” (including all public property), a ban on certain semiautomatic rifles and pistols, a ban on open carry, a requirement for gun shops to post signs warning of firearms dangers, and a ban on unserialized receivers (“ghost guns”). The ghost guns ban is not consistent with the new ATF rule, further screwing things up. This nonsense has now created a “patchwork” of firearms laws in several cities around Denver and Boulder. A few cities are being sued by the Rocky Mountain Gun Owners in the 10th Circuit, but the cases are disorganized and incomplete because in Colorado (due to the leftist legislature) each city can now pass their own firearms ordinances. Other groups like the Second Amendment Foundation have yet to assist in this effort; perhaps they are still researching it. But their experienced lawyers are needed in Colorado and the 10th Circuit NOW. The Colorado cities will obviously arrogantly ignore the Antonyuk v. Hochul rulings in the New York Circuit.
In Lafayette and Superior, Colorado where the red-shirted PAID Moms group crowded citizens out of the small town halls, both Lafayette and Superior Colorado City Councils essentially BANNED concealed carry in their cities because their “sensitive places” ban includes several places including a ban on all “public property” – which includes no exception for streets, sidewalks, trails and other “rights of way.” In fact all hard-surface and gravel “trails” (many throughout the city) were specifically banned by name in Lafayette. This was not a mistake or oversight. The Lafayette City Council included all rights of way after public debate on the issue, with one rational council member loudly booed by the “Moms” group when he brought up how problematic it was. (The ordinance including the rights of way ban passed 5-2.) This obviously not only violated Bruen, but also the Colorado concealed carry law.
So there is now now way to transport a firearm as a pedestrian anywhere in Lafayette or Superior Colorado, either concealed or openly, because the only exceptions are for private property or transport in a “means of conveyance” (i.e. an automobile, trailer, and perhaps a bicycle bag). If you are walking on a city street, sidewalk, alley or trail and have a concealed carry license (or walking from your parked car to a home or business) you are now a criminal in Lafayette and Superior Colorado. Of course they also banned licensed concealed carry in all parks and open space.
The cities of Louisville and Boulder specifically EXCLUDED rights of way from their public property concealed carry bans, probably because their city attorneys realized that this directly contradicts the state concealed-carry law. Lafayette has not yet been sued over this idiocy, and I believe the Rocky Mountain Gun Owners suit against the other Colorado cities such as Superior does not correctly address the sensitive places issue or rights of way issue – their suit apparently concentrates on the “assault weapons” issue. These sensitive places and rights of way bans are under the radar in Colorado and in the local gun rights groups. Again, the Second Amendment Foundation needs to sue over this in the 10th Circuit NOW as they have done successfully in many firearms cases around the country.