A New York federal judge granted a temporary injunction blocking provisions of New York's new Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA), stating that there is no historical analogue or tradition supporting the state's bid to make several "sensitive areas" gun-free zones by law.
“The new state law banning possession of concealed firearms in Times Square by licensed permit holders ‘does not appear permissible’ and shouldn’t be enforced by the NYPD, a federal judge ruled Thursday.
The 53-page decision also blocked enforcement of several other provisions of the ‘Concealed Carry Improvement Act’ championed by Gov. Kathy Hochul in response to the Supreme Court’s landmark July ruling that overturned a 1913 state gun-control law.
Syracuse federal Judge Glenn Suddaby issued temporary restraining orders against the aspects of the CCIA he found unconstitutional.
But he also said they wouldn’t take effect for three days to give Hochul time to file a challenge with the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan.
In his decision, Suddaby said, ‘Based on the historical analogues located thus far, it does not appear permissible for New York State to restrict concealed carry’ in Times Square.
‘Granted, one might argue that historical statutes banning the carrying of guns in ‘fairs or markets’ are analogous to this prohibition’, he wrote.
‘However, thus far, only two such statutes have been located’.
Suddaby also said that those laws appeared to involve ‘carrying a gun offensively’ and to ‘depend on royal reign’, and that ‘two statutes do not make a tradition’.
In addition to Times Square, the judge also ruled that it’s ‘impermissible for New York State to restrict concealed carry’ in ten other ‘purported sensitive locations’ set forth in the CCIA.
They include healthcare facilities, libraries, playgrounds, parks, zoos, childcare centers, summer camps and homeless shelters.
‘Setting aside the lack of historical analogues supporting these particular provisions, in the Court’s view, the common thread tying them together is the fact that they all regard locations where (1) people typically congregate or visit and (2) law-enforcement or other security professionals are — presumably — readily available’, Suddaby wrote.
But Suddaby let stand restrictions covering government buildings, polling places, special events in public spaces, houses of worship, schools and protest rallies.
Suddaby also temporarily ruled against the enforcement of measures requiring carry-permit applicants to give authorities a list of all their current and former social media accounts from the past three years, as well as the names and contact information of everyone living with them.
In addition, he said applicants wouldn’t have to meet for in-person interviews with officials reviewing their applications and barred a requirement that they prove themselves to be of ‘good moral character’.
Suddaby’s ruling came in response to a pending suit filed by six plaintiffs who allege that the CCIA violates their rights under the Second and 14th Amendments by giving authorities the discretion to deny carry permits to law-abiding citizens on grounds that they don’t have a special need to defend themselves.
The case has yet to be decided, but Suddaby said the plaintiffs had ‘made a strong showing that they will likely experience irreparable harm if’ he didn’t grant the temporary restraining orders.
State Attorney General Letitia James, who is defending Houchl, said the judge’s ruling would be appealed.
‘Today’s decision comes in the wake of mass shootings and rampant gun violence hurting communities here in New York and across the country’, she said in a prepared statement.
‘While the decision preserves portions of the law, we believe the entire law must be preserved as enacted’.
Hochul, in a statement, said that the CCIA ‘was carefully crafted to put in place common-sense restrictions around concealed carry permits’.
‘While this decision leaves aspects of the law in place, it is deeply disappointing that the Judge wants to limit my ability to keep New Yorkers safe and to prevent more senseless gun violence’, she said.
‘I will continue to do everything in my power to combat the gun violence epidemic and protect New Yorkers’.
Mayor Eric Adams also said, ‘Once again, the courts have opened up another river leading to the sea of gun violence, making it harder for us to protect New Yorkers’.
‘While the city is not a party to this case, we are willing to support the state in any way possible as it pursues an appeal’, he added.
State Senate Minority Leader Rob Ortt (R-Lockport) also called the ruling ‘a victory for the Constitutional rights of all New Yorkers’.
‘Albany’s political ruling class has repeatedly parroted a false narrative that law-abiding firearm owners are the root of increasing crime in our communities. Nothing could be further from the truth’, he said.
‘Instead of appealing today’s decision, and continuing their unconstitutional political assault on New Yorkers’ freedoms, the Governor and her Legislative allies should close the revolving door of violent, repeat offenders they opened with their pro-criminal agenda’”. -Bernadette Hogan, Carl Campanile, and Bruce Golding, New York Post
An unarmed society is a defenseless society, which is why the number of causalities is usually much higher in places that are gun-free zones than in places where citizens are able to defend themselves by legally carrying arms.
Fortunately, there are sufficient guns even in most “gun-controlled” states to cause problems for occupying soldiery and police forces.
It’s vital to keep in mind that, particularly in this day and age, gun violence is primarily a racial issue, not an issue of the availability of firearms.
This statistical beast is somewhat elusive due to the FBI’s stalwart effort to conceal all Hispanic crime by designating it entirely as a part of the Caucasian crime statistical data pool. However, it’s possible to figure out a general approximation of what the numbers would be if the FBI accurately reported the statistics.
The statistical chart compares the three primary U.S. racial populations and the rates at which they commit firearms homicide per 100,000 population, then juxtaposes them with what is their respective international equivalent.
In actuality, the U.S.-Hispanic and U.S.-Black rates of firearms homicide are actually significantly lower than the rates at which firearms homicide is committed by non-U.S. Hispanics and non-U.S. Africans, despite the greater access of the U.S.-based populations to firearms.
It would also indicate that the U.S.-White homicide rate is 0.32 per 100k population, a per capita rate very close to The Netherlands at 0.33 although still higher than France, Germany, or the United Kingdom.