In a mostly freedom-positive ruling, U.S. District Court Judge John Sinatra, Jr. granted to plaintiffs injunctive relief against a blatant New York state attack on the right to keep and bear arms.
In question, the July, 2022 passed New York statute pushed by Governor Kathy Hochul (D) that tried to slide new gun bans through terminological holes offered by the U.S. Supreme Court in its “NY Rifle and Pistol Association v Bruen” decision of June, ’22.
Specifically, the state tried to use a carve-out the “Bruen” decision offered for so-called “sensitive areas,” claiming that, you got it, the state can designate “public places” as prohibited zones for those who want to exercise their God-given right to carry a concealed firearm.
As Michael Katz reports for Newsmax that the ruling in the case called “Christian v. James” covers two types of “places”, real, government-funded public properties, and – the type that is getting the most attention in numerous news reports -- private property that is open to people to enter for activities such as commerce.
“A federal judge Thursday ruled unconstitutional a 2022 New York law that prohibits licensed gun owners from carrying a concealed firearm on private property open to the public unless the property owner expressly allows it.”
And Katz offers more of the background information from 2022:
“It is yet another setback for the Democrat-controlled New York State Assembly which has continually been thwarted in attempts to pass gun-control legislation that passes constitutional muster. In a 6-3 ruling in June 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a New York handgun-licensing law that required residents who want to carry a handgun in public to show a special need to defend themselves.
Democrat Gov. Kathy Hochul called the State Assembly into a special session following the Supreme Court's decision to strengthen existing gun laws.”
In other words, Hochul called the State Assembly to figure out new ways to attack the inherent human right to self-defense.
They passed a bill that forbade residents from carrying on government-tax-connected property and on private property that is open to the public unless the owner posts his or her explicit consent.
Judge Sinatra struck down the statute.
Related: Wild West?! NYC Mayor Rails – And FAILS – Attacking SCOTUS Gun Ruling
It’s a mostly pro-freedom ruling that sees Sinatra utilize the “Second Tier” of what, since that 2022 “Bruen” Supreme Court decision, has become known as the “Two-Tier Bruen Standard.”
Katz focuses on this portion of Sinatra’s 43-page ruling:
"’Regulation in this area is permissible only if the government demonstrates that the new enactment is consistent with the nation's historical tradition of sufficiently analogous regulations,’ Sinatra wrote. ‘New York fails that test here. Indeed, property owners have the right to exclude. But the state may not unilaterally exercise that right and, thereby, interfere with the long-established Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens who seek to carry for self-defense on private property open to the public.’"
Thus, Sinatra mixes the good with the bad, producing a result that, overall, stops the Hochulistas from gun-grabbing on public property and from dictating to property owners and visitors how they can peacefully arrange their interactions, armed or unarmed.
The problem area is the “Second Tier” or “historical analogue” carveout the Supreme Court created in its Bruen decision.
In Bruen, the Supreme Court majority essentially said that future gun-grab statutes heard before any level of justice in the US should be scrutinized, first, on whether the statute in question conforms to the actual wording of the Second Amendment.
That’s pretty clear, because the Second Amendment is clear. It explicitly says, “…the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
Ever, by any level of government.
Unfortunately, unethically, and illogically, the Bruen Supreme Court then added the “Second Tier” of judicial analysis it wants other judges to use, that being a look at whether the particular gun-grab statute can be said to have an “historical analogue” to any moment in US history when some political apparatus took away a gun.
Which means – it INFRINGED the right to keep and bear arms. Which places the “Second Tier” in opposition to “First Tier” and the actual wording of the Second Amendment.
In this case, Sinatra concluded that there was no historical analogue, so the result of his ruling is the same as it would be if he correctly and solely focused on the actual “First Tier” – i.e. the actual wording of the Second Amendment.
But what if he had found some instance, say in the 1860s, when some oppressive political subcomponent of the US DID steal guns. Would any honest judge claim that such an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms is NOT an infringement explicitly prohibited by the Second Amendment?
It IS a mixed bag of a process that sees a positive result – covering both public property (which is supposed to never be closed to armed people) and private property (which the owners are supposed to open and to close to anyone as they see fit).
As the Firearms Policy Coalition, which was involved with the case, puts it:
"Just yesterday, New York Governor Kathy Hochul said that, after the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision, the State 'doubled down' on its anti-rights agenda. In a statement yesterday, she said that '[the State] came up with legislation. And we have a prohibition on concealed carry weapons in sensitive places. I personally think every place is sensitive[.]' However, today’s decision again shows that Governor Hochul couldn’t be more wrong.
'Regulation in this area is permissible only if the government demonstrates that the new enactment is consistent with the Nation's historical tradition of sufficiently analogous regulations. New York fails that test here,' the Court said in its opinion today. 'Indeed, property owners have the right to exclude. But the state may not unilaterally exercise that right and, thereby, interfere with the long-established Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens who seek to carry for self-defense on private property open to the public.'”
Private property owners always retain the right to exclude armed people, and they are supposed to be able to exercise the right to exclude anyone. It is, after all, private property. But the Founders were clear, and Kathy Hochul and her cronies cannot weasel their way around the fact that they explicitly forbade all levels of government from blocking us in the exercise of our rights in public spaces.
While Hochul enjoys armed protection, paid for my New York taxpayers, she never seems to stop thirsting for more gun-grabs. As a result, she shows herself to be a predator, and every time she pushes for more government activity, on any level, she should be called out for that fact.
Judge Sinatra has done so. And, despite the two-tier Bruen standard that muddies understanding of a very clear human right, he came out on the right side opposing the Governor and her gang.
Let’s hope that more judges will do the same.