When the Supreme Court ruled in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen in June of 2022, millions of Americans believed New York had finally been forced to respect the Constitution. The Court was clear. The Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to carry a firearm in public for self-defense, and government restrictions must be consistent with this nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.
It was one of the most significant Second Amendment victories in American history. New York’s response? Defiance.
New York’s CCIA Was Albany’s Answer
Just eight days after the Supreme Court struck down New York’s unconstitutional “proper cause” requirement for obtaining a carry permit, Governor Kathy Hochul signed the Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA) into law. Rather than complying with the Court’s decision, Albany lawmakers rewrote the rulebook in an apparent attempt to accomplish through new legislation what they had just been forbidden from doing by the court. Except, the CCIA was more of the same, if not worse, legislation.
If Bruen was the Supreme Court telling New York, “You cannot deny citizens their constitutional right to bear arms,” the CCIA was New York replying, “Watch us.” The state replaced one unconstitutional obstacle with dozens of new ones.
Suddenly, ordinary citizens who had jumped through every legal hoop were confronted with an ever-growing maze of restrictions. Sensitive locations multiplied across the state. Private property became off-limits by default. New requirements, extensive disclosures, interviews, character references, training mandates, social media invasions, and other bureaucratic hurdles transformed a constitutional right into an expensive, time-consuming privilege… and for most, a far-off dream.
And the lawsuits began.
The “Vampire Rule” and Sensitive-Place Problem
One after another, federal courts examined portions of New York’s new law. Some restrictions survived. Others did not. The prohibition on carrying on virtually all private property unless expressly permitted was struck down. This was nicknamed the “Vampire Rule,” because like a vampire in folklore, guns were not allowed in private businesses that were open to the public, unless they were specifically invited in.
Courts recognized that many of New York’s provisions simply had no historical analogue, which was the very test the Supreme Court required in Bruen.
Yet despite repeated courtroom losses, New York continued defending nearly every restriction it enacted.
This has become the state’s strategy: pass the law first, spend taxpayer dollars defending it later, and force citizens to spend years, and often hundreds of thousands of dollars, simply trying to reclaim rights they never should have lost in the first place. Then, if the people win, start the process all over again.
The damage, however, isn’t measured only in legal fees. It’s measured in public safety. Every time New York creates another “gun-free zone,” it creates another place where law-abiding citizens are disarmed while violent criminals remain unconcerned with compliance. Criminals do not consult maps of sensitive locations before committing robberies, assaults, or murders. They don’t pause to determine whether they’re violating Penal Law before pulling a trigger. Only the law-abiding do.
Permit Holders Became Targets of Bureaucracy
The predictable result is that the people most likely to obey these laws become the least capable of defending themselves when violence erupts. The irony is impossible to ignore, but somehow Hochul and her Democrat majority state legislature have managed to do a fine job of it.
Politicians claim these restrictions make New Yorkers safer while simultaneously ensuring that responsible citizens are unable to defend themselves during the very moments, they need that protection most. The state has effectively told millions of permit holders, “You have the right to carry a firearm, just not where you’re most likely to need one.”
Out-of-State Gun Owners Face a Legal Minefield
But the problem extends beyond New York residents. Visitors from every other state in the nation face a legal minefield the moment they cross the border into New York. A concealed carry permit that is recognized throughout much of the country becomes meaningless upon entering The Empire State. Travelers who have undergone background checks, completed training, and carried responsibly for years can suddenly become criminals simply because New York refuses to recognize permits issued by other states. This is not to say that carry permits are an acceptable requirement in the first place, but if NY is going to turn a God given right into a government issued privilege, it should at least offer the same to out of state visitors.
Imagine a woman who legally carries a firearm every day in Pennsylvania, Virginia, or Florida. She drives into New York to visit family or attend an event. The firearm she lawfully carried for personal protection moments earlier has now become the basis for felony charges if she fails to navigate one of the most confusing hodgepodge of firearm laws in America.
The message couldn’t be clearer. New York doesn’t trust its own citizens. It doesn’t trust visitors from other states. It doesn’t trust permit holders who have passed background investigations. It doesn’t even trust the Constitution after the Supreme Court has interpreted it. The state trusts only government control. Or maybe, it’s not about trust at all and more about making sure that any and all political opposition to the supermajority Democrat legislature is put in a perpetual state of unarmed helplessness.
What makes this particularly troubling is that every legislative defeat seems to produce another attempt to regulate around constitutional protections. Instead of respecting judicial decisions, New York lawmakers search for new angles, new restrictions, and new ways to burden a right that the Constitution commands “shall not be infringed.”
No other constitutional right is treated this way.
Imagine requiring citizens to obtain government permission before publishing a newspaper article, attend eighteen hours of training before speaking publicly, or be prohibited from attending church because the building happened to be located within a designated “sensitive area.” Yet when the right involved is the Second Amendment, many elected officials suddenly become comfortable treating constitutional protections as negotiable.
They are not.
Why the Fight Is Bigger Than New York
The Constitution does not become optional because a governor disagrees with it.
Fundamental rights are not granted by Albany. They are recognized by the Constitution and protected from government infringement. That is precisely why Bruen mattered. It reminded the nation that constitutional rights do not depend upon whether politicians approve of them.
Unfortunately, New York’s response demonstrated that some politicians still believe constitutional rights are merely obstacles to be worked around.
For four years, lawful gun owners have endured an exhausting cycle of unconstitutional legislation, expensive litigation, and endless uncertainty. Every court victory has been met with another government effort to preserve restrictions that lack any historical or constitutional foundation. This should concern every American, regardless of where they stand on firearms, because when government can ignore one constitutional right after the Supreme Court has spoken, every constitutional right becomes less secure. The Second Amendment was never intended to exist only where politicians find it convenient, and freedom was never supposed to require permission from those who are determined to restrict it.
Could a New Governor Change Course?
There may, however, be reason for cautious optimism. If Nassau County Executive Bruce Blakeman is elected governor, New York could see a markedly different approach to the Second Amendment. Blakeman has consistently presented himself as a supporter of the right to keep and bear arms and has been openly critical of policies that burden law-abiding gun owners while doing little to stop violent criminals.
While no governor can erase every unconstitutional law with the stroke of a pen, many restrictions are written into statute and would require legislative action or continued court victories. A governor committed to defending constitutional rights could reshape the state’s priorities. That includes directing state agencies to respect the limits established by the Supreme Court, ending the relentless defense of questionable restrictions in court, and focusing law enforcement resources on violent offenders instead of responsible citizens exercising a fundamental constitutional right.
About Dan Wos, Author – Good Gun Bad Guy
Dan Wos is available for Press Commentary. For more information, contact PR HERE
Dan Wos is a nationally recognized 2nd Amendment advocate, Host of The Loaded Mic, and Author of the “GOOD GUN BAD GUY” book series. He speaks at events, is a contributing writer for many publications, and can be found on radio stations across the country. Dan has been a guest on Newsmax, the Sean Hannity Show, Real America’s Voice, and several others. Speaking on behalf of gun-rights, Dan exposes the strategies of the anti-gun crowd and explains their mission to disarm law-abiding American gun-owners.
from https://ift.tt/p0jP3g9
via IFTTT
No comments:
Post a Comment