MIXED RESULTS: Judges Strike Down Portions of NY's Gun Control Law, Upholding the Rest
Will the Supreme Court Tackle New York's Authoritarianism Once More?
New York’s highest court has finally ruled on the ongoing legal battle surrounding the so-called Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA), New York’s law passed in response to the landmark Supreme Court decision, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.
The three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a ruling this past Friday that strikes down three major provisions of New York’s law:
A ban on carrying on private property “held open to the general public,” like a bodega or pharmacy, unless the property owner specifically allowed it
The requirement that applicants for a concealed carry permit turn over their social media accounts for review
A restriction that would prevent security guards from carrying at houses of worship
As noted in Breitbart:
The panel–which decided 3-0 to uphold the injunctions in the consolidated cases–was comprised of George H. W. Bush appointee Dennis Jacobs, Bill Clinton appointee Gerard E. Lynch, and President Joe Biden appointed Eunice C. Lee.
This matters because, if you’ve been paying attention, America’s judiciary is more politicized than ever. So, for such a decision to come from such a bench is the right step forward. But, the decision is only a partial win; the rest of the law that still stands is nothing short of gun-grabbing overreach by the clowns in Albany.
The law still nullifies your right to self-defense in most places where you’d actually want to be packing, which are designated as “sensitive locations” :
Airports
Bars and restaurants that serve alcohol
Courthouses
Daycare facilities, playgrounds and other locations where children gather
Educational Institutions
Emergency shelters, including domestic violence shelters and homeless shelters
Entertainment venues
Federal, state, and local government buildings
Health and medical facilities
Houses of worship (unless you’re a security guard)
Libraries
Polling sites
Public demonstrations and rallies
Public transportation including subways and buses
Times Square
And, the “good moral character” provision of the application process still stands. The decision from the panel read:
The CCIA’s definition of “character” is a proxy for dangerousness: whether the applicant, if licensed to carry a firearm, is likely to pose a danger to himself, others, or public safety.
It’s funny that New York doesn’t allow judges to consider “dangerousness” for suspected criminals when issuing bail, but the Court of Appeals thinks it’s perfectly reasonable when considering concealed carry applications from law-abiding citizens.
It’s important to remember that the issue at the heart of the Bruen decision was whether or not citizens needed “special reasons” to be able to carry concealed. The Supreme Court ruled appropriately: No, they don’t. It is remarkable when you step back and look at what actually happened: Governor Kathy Hochul and the New York State Legislature effectively tried to overturn SCOTUS’ decision with a local law.
There is still pending lawfare in lower courts that may affect other parts of the law. But because major portions have now reached the NY high court, gun rights advocates leading the legal charge are able to petition SCOTUS to intervene.
I can’t imagine that the conservative-majority court — with stalwart Justice Clarence Thomas authoring the Bruen opinion — is too happy with New York’s clear snub.
New York court tosses congressional maps in potential blow to GOP control of House (New York Post)
New York’s highest court on Tuesday tossed out the state’s congressional map and ordered new ones to be drawn up ahead of the 2024 election — potentially giving Democrats a major edge in several hotly contested districts next year.
The 4-3 decision from the New York Court of Appeals will require the state’s Independent Redistricting Commission to have another crack at coming up with new districts ahead of what is expected to be a battleground for control of the House of Representatives. […]
The development comes after the high court had ruled last year that the Democrat-controlled legislature unconstitutionally approved gerrymandered districts in their favor, which led to a court-appointed special master to redraw them for last year’s midterms.
Dems subsequently sued to have the court-drawn map tossed after their party lost a handful of seats in the election – handing control of the House over to Republicans.
A battle is raging for control of New York. After the recent embarrassing midterm losses for Dems, they’ve committed to subversive means to get their way. The only way to counter this is to turn out big for elections, countersignal against BS progressive narratives, and build a common-sense coalition of New Yorkers from all sides.
Prosecutors Agree He Shot a Man in Self-Defense. They're Still Trying To Put Him in Prison. (Reason)
![](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F614132f2-d9d0-4d03-a969-22eb13606589_712x585.jpeg)
A New York City man is facing several years in prison after killing someone who'd broken into his apartment.
But perhaps most interesting is that, at his arraignment last month, prosecutors did not dispute that LaShawn Craig acted in self-defense when he fatally shot Timothy Jones. Instead, they hit Craig with several charges related to the criminal possession of a weapon, because he did not have a license for the handgun he used to protect himself.
Craig is also 16-year, 5-tour military veteran.
In a sane world, we’d go hard after real criminals, and give relief to otherwise law-abiding citizens that use undocumented weapons in self-defense (Yes, I’m offended by the term “illegal gun”). But in upside-down New York, prosecutors’ favorite target is anyone who has the balls to defend themselves from criminals.
Boston's woke Democrat Mayor Michelle Wu plans no WHITES holiday party for councilors: Aide accidentally sent group email invite meant only for 'electeds of color' (Daily Mail)
The Democratic mayor of Boston has sparked outrage after inviting city councilors to a holiday party intended only for 'electeds of color.'
Michelle Wu's invitation for the December 13 'Electeds of Color Holiday Party' appeared to have been sent out to all councilors in error by her aide, Denise DosSantos.
DosSantos followed up the email 15 minutes later apologizing for the invite, clarifying that it was only meant for the city's six councilors of color. The seven white council members were not welcome.
I didn’t think it was possible for Boston to be more woke than New York, but here we are. Honestly, if I were a white councilmember I probably couldn’t help but crash the party and bring mayonnaise sandwiches, unmarinated chicken, and alcoholic seltzer. Please, someone do this.
The Aesthetica section is moving to our Instagram, follow us @LBRTYDigital.
If you enjoy LBRTY Digital and our mission of guiding New York toward a new era of prosperity and freedom, consider joining our inner circle of supporters with a paid subscription. For just the cost of a couple coffees a month, you’ll help establish LD as a powerful alternative to the local media landscape.