In reaction to the US Supreme Court's ruling of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen , New York Governor Kathy Hochul called a special session of the legislature. Bruen destroyed the constitutionally unlawful licensing programs that some states had conceived to stop those who are in compliance with the law from exercising their rights to self-defense. The goal of the session was to put further obstacles that could hinder the ability of New Yorkers to carry guns. The New York Times sums the law in the following way:
The new law in the state prohibits the carrying of handguns in a variety of public spaces like subways and buses and also in parks, hospitals, day cares, stadiums, and other day facilities. Guns are not allowed on private property, unless the property owner states that he/she expressly will allow the use of guns. At the last moment, lawmakers included Times Square to the list of prohibited sites.
It also demands applicants to complete 16 hours of instruction in firearm handling in addition to two hours of shooting range instruction, as well as an interview in person and the passing of a written test. The applicants are also scrutinized by local officials who will keep some discretion over the process of granting permits.
To be honest this description is a sham on what the new law actually does.
It seems that what New York is trying to make clear is that you can carry a firearm; however, you can't carry it if there is an endpoint. It was in the past that the Supreme Court allowed states to restrict the carrying of guns when in “sensitive locations,” New York has come out and said that the world that is outside your doors is one of those places. I'm not an attorney, but this seems to me to be overly cute in half and I'm skeptical that the majority of this nonsense can stand up to the courts.
New York has also added certain blatantly discriminatory aspects. For instance, the “15 hours of in-person training at a firing range” isn't just stupid…no one should spend 15 hours at the range or in an instructor's class at a range to be eligible for a concealed carry permit…but is an attempt to ensure that only the wealthiest can get the necessary instruction. “In-person” interviews are nonsense and has only one goal: discrimination against candidates by gender, race, age, social class, and political beliefs. It's akin to a “literacy test” so beloved by the political party of Jim Crow. The most obvious violation is a mandatory exam of an applicant's social media profiles.
The new law will require those seeking to purchase a gun license to provide the list of accounts on social media they've maintained in the past three years to ensure that authorities can confirm the authenticity of their “character and conduct.”
As per the statute, that applicants must show they possess “the essential character, temperament and judgment necessary to be entrusted with a weapon and to use it only in a manner that does not endanger oneself and others.”
“Sometimes, they're telegraphing their intent to cause harm to others,” Hochul declared during a press conference.
This is nonsense and is a direct assault on the Bruen's ban regarding “may issue” permit processes. It is not necessary to prove anything to carry a firearm. If you're not barred in federal law from possessing weapons, you are able to carry them. The requirement for account details on social media and analysis of posts posted on these accounts is clearly illegal.
The new law stipulates that ammunition sales are only made to holders of permits, and the purchases of ammo made by permit holders will be documented in a database maintained by the state. I don't know how they intend to enforce this law.
Also illegal is the purchase of certain types of armor for the body.
The strategy of New York is to make court cases which will take years to resolve. When these restrictions are struck down, New York will come again with even more. The past history of it has been the Second Circuit has been anti-gun and pro-totalitarian in its regulations, therefore the cases will need to be heard by the Supreme Court.
