New York’s ban on guns in parks and other “sensitive” locations is upheld

A federal appeals court on Friday upheld significant parts of New York’s expansive gun law, ruling that the state can ban the carrying of guns in schools, parks and other places and deny firearms to people local officials deem dangerous.

The ruling by the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit came in response to four separate challenges to the law, which was passed in the summer of 2022 after the Supreme Court struck down a previous law regulating the public carrying of firearms in New Zealand . York for over a century.

The new law bans carrying weapons in so-called sensitive locations, a category that also includes schools, government buildings, houses of worship and Times Square. The law also requires that people applying to carry weapons in public have “good moral character,” as determined by local licensing boards.

Friday’s ruling, by a three-judge panel, was largely a victory for New York, upholding both the ban on guns in many of the state’s outlined locations and the “good moral character test.”

But the appeals court struck down parts of the law, barring the state from declaring guns off-limits at places of worship and on private properties normally open to the public, such as gas stations and grocery stores. According to the court ruling, the owners of such properties must proactively indicate that weapons are prohibited.

“It puts the burden on every property owner to come out in a positive way and tell people they don’t want guns on the property,” said David Pucino, legal director of Giffords Law Center, a gun safety group.

The new law also required applicants for gun permits to submit a list of their social media accounts to help officials assess their character and behavior. The appeals court rejected that requirement, ruling that it was most likely unconstitutional to interfere with the aliases people use when expressing their opinions online.

The ban on carrying weapons in Times Square has been a particular point of contention. A federal judge ruled it unconstitutional last year, though the provision remained in place during the appeal process.

Although the Second Circuit did not explicitly address the constitutionality of the Times Square ban in its ruling Friday, parts of the decision suggested it would withstand future challenges.

Overall, legal experts say, the appeals court ruling was one of the most important on gun regulation since the Supreme Court struck down New York’s previous law last year.

Gov. Kathy Hochul welcomed the ruling in a statement. She noted that the regulations, which she signed into law in July 2022, had been repeatedly challenged.

“Even after a year of legal attacks by right-wing extremists, the core principles of our laws remain in place after today’s ruling,” Ms Hochul said. “Public safety is my top priority, and I will continue my efforts to protect the safety of New Yorkers.”

Like other states affected by the 2022 Supreme Court ruling, New York has replaced a simple but broadly restrictive law with a long list of specific rules regarding who can carry guns and where. The Second Circuit’s ruling indicated approval of this approach.

Gun Owners of America, an organization that had supported one of the challenges to the new law, called the ruling frustrating.

“We will continue the fight until this entire law is consigned to the bowels of history, where it belongs,” said Erich Pratt, the organization’s senior vice president.

Another challenger, His Tabernacle Family Church in upstate New York, celebrated the provision on places of worship.

“The court made clear that houses of worship have a constitutionally protected discretion to decide for themselves whether to otherwise allow legal possession of firearms on their premises,” said Erin Murphy of the law firm Clement and Murphy, which represented the church.

It was unclear what the next step would be for those challenging the law. They could, among other things, appeal to the Supreme Court or ask the full Second Circuit to reconsider the ruling.

In his opinion in the 2022 case, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, Judge Clarence Thomas declared that law-abiding citizens had a constitutional right to bear arms for their own defense. He wrote that any new restrictions would have to be justified by analogies to similar regulations from early American history.

In fact, he wrote, new gun laws should be defended by citing old laws. The requirement has caused great confusion among judges across the country.

On Friday, the appeals court gave states broader latitude to justify new gun laws than many judges had understood in the wake of the Bruen decision.

The court ruled that the Second Amendment, like the First Amendment, must be read to include “traditional limitations” on the right to bear arms.

For example, the ruling noted that “a reasoned denial of a transportation permit to a person who, if armed, would pose a danger to himself, others, or the public is consistent with the well-recognized historical tradition of preventing dangerous individuals possession of weapons.”

Jacob Charles, a law professor at Pepperdine University whose work is cited in the ruling, said in an interview that the interpretation “would give states much more leeway in setting gun regulations.”

“It doesn’t impose these strict rules on historical analysis, like requiring a set number of laws,” he said. “Instead, it says that courts should look more holistically at the historical tradition.”