Following an October ruling in which he temporarily halted some pieces of New York’s new concealed carry statute (which an appeals court then reversed), Syracuse Federal Judge Glenn Suddaby went further Monday, issuing an injunction blocking many portions of the law from going into effect. The blame for this bad ruling falls half on Suddaby and half on the U.S. Supreme Court.
In its Bruen decision this summer, the high court invalidated New York’s century-old “may issue” firearm licensing system, which had proven extremely useful to police to keep gun violence in check. Justice Clarence Thomas and his colleagues nixed the law on sweeping ideological grounds, interpreting the Second Amendment far more broadly than ever before and demanding that restrictions on gun-carry rights be firmly rooted in history (or, better put, conservatives’ skewed reading of history).
In the wake of the decision, the Legislature and Gov. Kathy Hochul swiftly but in good faith tried to protect New York in a manner permitted by the Supremes — restricting the carry of weapons in more “sensitive places” and redefining who now gets to carry concealed weapons.
Thomas’ opinion, however, provided precious little guidance on what can constitute a firearm-free zone, beyond declaring that “there is no historical basis for New York to effectively declare the island of Manhattan a ‘sensitive place.’ ” Fine, but what then? If federal buildings and schools can be gun-free zones — and no one asserts otherwise — why can’t houses of worship, parks and subways, all of which have powerful historical rationales for restrictions?
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court strongly suggested it had no quibble with states trying to ensure that dangerous individuals, from domestic abusers to people with histories of making violent threats, are barred from carrying weapons.
That wasn’t enough for Suddaby. Reversing a position in his October decision, he enjoined New York State’s “good moral character” provisions asking for applicants’ social media posts and other information — all to ensure that a person doesn’t have a history of making violent threats, as many mass shooters have. The judge says that’s no good. On what grounds?
