ALBANY, NY – A week after the Supreme Court repealed a law limiting the spread of hidden weapons in New York, state Democratic leaders were expected to respond on Thursday with new measures that would ban people from carrying firearms in many public environments considered “sensitive”. places.”
The ban would apply to places such as schools, hospitals, subways, parks and stadiums. It would also extend to any private property, such as a bar, restaurant, or home, unless the owner of the estate expressly permits the weapons, which he can do by placing a sign on his premises.
The planned legislation was seen as a forceful retort to the Supreme Court decision last week and may be early evidence of how far a state can go to limit the spread of weapons without violating the Supreme Court ruling.
By a vote of 6 to 3, the Supreme Court ruled that Americans have a broad right to bear arms away from home, declaring that a century-old New York law was unconstitutional because of the way it limited those who could obtain driving licenses.
Fearing the decision would lead to a dangerous proliferation of weapons amid an increase in existing armed violence, Gov. Kathy Hochul had ordered the Democratic-led Legislature to meet for an emergency session in Albany on Thursday to tighten. state arms laws.
Lawmakers were also advancing on a broad measure of equality that would enshrine the right to abortion in the state constitution, following the Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade.
The measure, which would require an amendment to the state constitution, would place New York at the forefront of legal efforts to codify abortion rights, ensuring it cannot simply be repealed by a future legislature.
Still, amending a state constitution is a years-long process in New York, requiring the approval of two separately elected legislatures and then the approval of voters in a referendum.
Lawmakers seemed to be advancing more firmly on gun legislation, although, in Albany’s classic way, the actual legislative language was not expected to be made public until shortly before the vote.
Lawmakers are considering, for example, adding new requirements for New Yorkers to receive a concealed transportation permit, including 16 hours of training on how to handle a gun, two hours of shooting range training, a personal interview, and a written exam. according to internal legislative notes obtained by the New York Times.
Although Ms. Hochul said she had reached an agreement with her Democratic colleagues in the Legislature on the broad outlines of the bill, lawmakers were still finalizing the details and precise language Thursday afternoon, with a vote scheduled for later in the evening.
Legislative leaders and the governor seemed to have reached an agreement on a list of places where guns would be banned: health facilities, including nursing homes and shelters for domestic violence; houses of worship; colleges and universities; places where children gather, such as kindergartens, playgrounds, parks and zoos; public transport; places where alcohol or cannabis is consumed; and theaters, stages, concerts, casinos and other entertainment venues.
According to the plan being considered, carrying a weapon in a prohibited area would amount to a crime punishable by up to four years in prison.
“I want to make sure we have done everything we can to protect the citizens of this state,” Ms. Hochul said at a news conference Wednesday, a day after winning the Democratic primary for governor.
Ms Hochul said the extensive list of places where guns would be banned was drawn up to assure New Yorkers “that when they go there to meet, work, places of worship, polling places and larger meeting spaces, they don’t have to worry about someone standing next to him with a gun. “
The legislation is expected to pass the Senate and the State Assembly, where Democrats have supermajorities, amid symbolic opposition from Republicans, some of whom denounced the process by which Democrats pushed legislation as hasty and secretive.
Long Island Rep. Lee Zeldin, the Republican gubernatorial candidate who has made public safety a cornerstone of his campaign, immediately spoke out against the creation of unarmed zones, saying he would make the state “less for sure”.
“If you’re going to identify a place and tell the criminal that there won’t be any law-abiding New Yorkers in that place carrying a firearm in their defense, you’re putting the safety of other people in that place at risk. said Mr. Zeldin at a press conference in Buffalo on Thursday.
Adam Winkler, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, who specializes in gun policy and constitutional law, said New York had taken an aggressive approach to defining sensitive places, as expected, but that the training requirements were not. as onerous as some had predicted.
As to whether the new law would meet with the Supreme Court, Professor Winkler said it was difficult to know, given the little guidance the Court had given.
“The only certainty is that there will be litigation,” he said. “No matter what New York does, gun advocates will sue.”
The Supreme Court ruling, written by Judge Clarence Thomas, affirmed the rights of Americans to bear arms in public and rejected the process used by six states, including New York, California and Massachusetts, to approve transportation permits. hidden.
Under the old New York statute, people applying for covert firearms permits had to prove that they had a “proper cause” to obtain a permit, in addition to meeting a number of other criteria: having at least 21 years, not to have any serious or serious crime. offenses and have “good moral character.”
If an applicant meets these criteria, officials could grant a license if they found that the applicant had a greater need for self-protection. The court questioned the use of discretion by the state in these cases, but said its decision did not affect 43 more states that issue transportation permits as long as applicants meet a defined set of criteria. .
The Supreme Court ruling was clear in saying that officials could designate certain “sensitive places” as prohibited for persons carrying a concealed weapon, provided that such places were of a similar nature to other areas with firearms prohibitions. for a long time, such as schools, government, and so on. buildings or polling stations. But it provided little additional guidance on what types of sites could be considered sensitive, although Judge Thomas noted that declaring outside the boundaries of the entire island of Manhattan would be inappropriate.
Lawmakers were still wondering on Thursday whether to ban guns in protests or in places where people have gathered to express their rights to freedom of expression.
The legislation would also extend the state’s so-called safe storage laws, passed in 2019, which require weapons to be stored securely in a home if someone under the age of 16 resides there. The legislation being considered would raise the age to 18 years. And it would prohibit gun owners from leaving their gun in a car unless it is stored in a safe, according to the notes.
State Sen. Luis Sepúlveda, a Bronx Democrat, said lawmakers intended to follow the Supreme Court’s poor guidance by enacting regulations, such as mandatory training, that were not discretionary, to “survive the constitutional meeting.”
The governor acknowledged on Wednesday that the legislation, however, would prevent guns in most public places.
When reporters asked her what areas would be left for permit holders to legally carry a firearm, Ms. Hochul said, “Probably some streets.”
“We know we have to make sure this is constitutional. We don’t want to go back to court,” Ms. Hochul, and added that: “They will go straight to the line, I will not cross it.”
Despite the broad consensus between both chambers on the intent of the legislation, several proposals were still underway following the concern of lawmakers.
Among them was a proposal that would disqualify an applicant for alcohol abuse leave and require recovering alcoholics to submit an affidavit from a licensed counselor stating that they had not drunk in at least three years. Similarly, lawmakers debated whether people are legally prohibited from carrying weapons outside the home if they were under the effects of alcohol or drugs.
Nicholas Fandos and Jonah E. Bromwich contributed to the report.