Mediaboss Marketing

As they ring in 2024, New Yorks concealed-carry pistol permit holders will have a little something to celebrate besides the start of the New Year.

A panel of federal judges recently struck down key parts of the states misnamed Concealed Carry Improvement Act, thus giving these law-abiding gun owners some of their constitutional rights back.

Unfortunately, though, in upholding other sections of the draconian law, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals split a baby that never should have been birthed in the first place.

Still, if youre a gun owner in New York, where Democrats control all three branches of executive and legislative power, you take your victories where you can get them.

This one comes in the 2nd Circuits ruling striking down part of the law prohibiting concealed-carry in so-called restricted places open to the public. That catch-all provision would have banned permit holders from carrying their weapons anywhere in the state without the expressed consent of property owners, turning on its head the idea of a constitutional right actually guaranteeing the right to do something.

The three-judge panel also knocked down a ban on bringing guns into houses of worship.

On the other hand, the court upheld prohibitions on carrying in so-called sensitive locations such as government buildings, schools, theaters, parks and other places in a list too long to enumerate here but which includes practically anywhere people might congregate. The law, and the 2nd Circuits concurrence, means that only criminals will be able to carry guns in such places.

This split-the-baby approach could also be seen in other aspects of the ruling. For instance, it struck down a requirement that people applying for a permit give licensing officers access to their social media posts, including pseudonyms. The judges said such overreach violates Second Amendment rights while also presenting serious First Amendment concerns because it is uncontroversial that the First Amendment protects the right to speak anonymously.

Yet the judges upheld the laws requirement that applicants be of good moral character. While a lower court judge had struck down that provision as unconstitutionally vague, the appeals court judges deemed it a proxy for dangerousness.

In fact, a district court judge had excoriated practically the entire law, but let it stand on purely technical grounds pending appeals. The 2nd Circuit judges agreed in part and disagreed on other parts all of which underscores the ideological fragility of what are supposed to be fundamental American rights.

The cases stem from last years U.S. Supreme Court decision striking down New Yorks prior law that required law-abiding citizens to show proper cause before being allowed to carry a concealed weapon for protection outside the home.

That decision in the so-called Bruen case, named for one of the government defendants, prompted Hochul and the Legislature to ram through the draconian CCIA in response, stripping New Yorkers of practically any ability to carry a concealed weapon. They took such steps despite clear warnings from the justices against using the latitude granted in Bruen to go to such extremes.

Now the 2nd Circuit panel has knocked down at least of some those unconstitutional restrictions on law-abiding gun owners who just want a chance to protect themselves against criminals who, by definition, will ignore any such law.

With the appeals court doing only half the job, it will be up to the Supreme Court to strike down the rest of Hochuls prohibitions, once the case reaches its docket again.

Mike Hammond, legislative counsel for Gun Owners of America, said that in restoring the rights of law-abiding gun owners to carry their weapons in some public places such as gas stations and grocery stores it seems the 2nd Circuit judges were sensitive to events like the massacre at the Tops supermarket here. Even though the stores armed security guard was thwarted by the fact that the killer had scouted the site and had on body armor, most such murderers will not be so well-prepared.

GOA, which has been out front helping plaintiffs oppose laws like the CCIA, will back an appeal, but is still deciding whether to ask the full 2nd Circuit to take up the case or to take it directly to the Supreme Court.

The Hochul administration did not respond to a request for comment. But Hammond said that if gun rights advocates appeal the parts of the ruling they dont like, the administration would probably file a cross-appeal opposing the restoration of some Second Amendment rights which New York Democrats obviously dont believe in.

That means the Supreme Court could end up revisiting the whole issue all over again. In fact, it already is considering another case resulting from its Bruen framework, which determined that current gun laws have to be consistent with the nations historical tradition of firearm regulation. That has led to some obviously misguided lower court rulings, such as ones allowing domestic abusers to own guns because there were no domestic violence laws when the Constitution was written.

But New York officials should take little confidence from that limited reconsideration, given that the CCIAs overreach is so clearly at odds with the entirety of what the justices laid out in restoring meaning to the Second Amendment.

It would be nice if the governor and state legislators would just make a New Years resolution to respect the Constitution and the rights of law-abiding gun owners not to mention respect taxpayers by not making them pay state lawyers to defend the indefensible.

But dont hold your breath waiting on that. Instead, wait for a more thorough judicial restoration of the right to defend yourself once New Yorks misguided law again reaches the high court.

In the meantime, when confronted by a mugger in one of New Yorks so-called sensitive places, you can just call the police. They will do a very thorough job of collecting evidence, after drawing a chalk outline around your body.

Or you can hire security, like the governor does, if you think your life is as valuable as hers. The only difference is, you wont be able to charge the taxpayers for having someone else defend what you should be able to defend yourself.

Subscribe to our Daily Headlines newsletter.

See the article here:
Rod Watson: In gun ruling, court splits a baby that should never have been birthed - Buffalo News