We don't always know how the U.S. Supreme Court will rule in specific cases, although we generally have a good idea given its originalist and conservative justices. This is a subject that's sort of come up before.
But when the Bruen decision was pending, New York knew it would lose and decided to make carrying a gun as hard as possible. Part of that decision involved banning guns on private property unless the property owner specifically permitted it.
This was an issue because, as things stand in most places, the assumption is that while property owners have a right to determine whether or not you can exercise your rights on their property, the default is that you do, unless they tell you otherwise.
New York tried to flip that on its head.
And this, unsurprisingly, triggered another legal challenge.
Recommended
In a press release on Thursday, the Second Amendment Foundation declared victory in federal court:
A federal district court judge in New York has ruled that the state’s restriction against concealed carry on private property open to the public is unconstitutional, handing a victory to the Second Amendment Foundation in a case known as Christian v. James.
U.S. District Judge John L. Sinatra, Jr. issued a 43-page decision in which he observed, “The Nation’s historical traditions have not countenanced such a curtailment of the right to keep and bear arms. Indeed, the right to self-defense is equally important—and equally recognized—on then vast swaths of private property open to the public across New York State.”Judge Sinatra further wrote, “The State maintains there is ‘extensive historical support spanning the colonial era to Reconstruction and beyond that forbade carrying guns onto others’ property without their permission. But the State fails, on this historical record, to demonstrate that the challenged restriction is ‘consist[ant] with a well-established and representative National tradition.”
SAF is joined by the Firearms Policy Coalition and Brett Christian, for whom the case is named.
Sinatra is a Trump appointee.
SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb noted that they were "delighted" with the judge's ruling, adding, "Once again, Empire State anti-gunners have been held in check by a judge who understands the Second Amendment is not a second-class right. The State tried to perpetuate its virtual ban on legal carry by prohibiting firearms on all private property open to the public for whatever reason, and the judge correctly said this restriction does not pass constitutional muster."
I shouldn't need to note that in all other cases, people are assumed to possess their rights on private property unless the owner takes some kind of specific action. For example, someone who gets loud in a store may be asked to quiet down or leave. Because it's their property, the other party's free speech rights don't protect them.
This is fine. Property rights are a thing, too.
But New York sought to treat the Second Amendment as a second-class right, defaulting businesses to be gun-free unless they made a specific decision to allow them. That's not right, and I'm glad to see the judge make the right call on this one.
“As we’ve said all along, the ‘sensitive place’ carry restrictions imposed by New York post-Bruen are unconstitutional. Hard stop,” said SAF Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack, via the press release. “We are thrilled that once again, the courts have agreed, and sent this amoral and unlawful ban packing.”
I couldn't agree more.
