Eric Adams Met Gala End Gun Violence
New York Mayor Eric Adams (Photo by Evan Agostini/Invision/AP)
Previous Post
Next Post

A U.S. District Court Judge has ruled that New York City’s gun controls enacted after the city lost in New York Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen are also unconstitutional. In a fit of pique following the judicial smackdown, the city deliberately ignored the Bruen ruling and enacted laws designating large swaths of the Big Apple as “sensitive places” and giving city officials the right turn down a carry permit application if they deem the poor taxpaying plebe to be “not of good moral character.”

That’s exactly the kind of “may issue” discretion that was at the heart of the Bruen complaint and why the city lost at the Supreme Court level.

As U.S. District Judge John P. Cronan (a Trump appointee) wrote in his opinion . . .

The Challenged Firearms Licensing Provisions land very close to the problematic “may issue” laws criticized in Bruen. … The Challenged Firearms Provisions empower a City licensing official to decide not to issue a permit or license for a firearm based on that official’s discretionary assessment of the applicant’s “good moral character” and the determination of a vaguely defined presence of “good cause.” Much like the “proper-cause” inquiry invalidated in Bruen, permitting denial of a firearms license based on a government official’s “good moral character” or “good cause” assessment has the effect of “prevent[ing] lawabiding citizens with ordinary self defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms.”

Well yes. That was whole the point of New York’s Bruen response law. It was a thinly-veiled attempt to reconstruct the same kind of bureaucratic discretion that the Bruen decision tore down. It didn’t fool anyone then and it didn’t fool judge Cronan who rejected the city’s arguments on historical grounds as well.

Finally, he wrote . . .

This case is not about the ability of a state or municipality to impose appropriate and constitutionally valid regulations governing the issuance of firearm licenses and permits. The constitutional infirmities identified herein lie not in the City’s decision to impose requirements for the possession of handguns, rifles, and shotguns. Rather, the provisions fail to pass constitutional muster because of the magnitude of discretion afforded to City officials in denying an individual their constitutional right to keep and bear firearms, and because of Defendants’ failure to show that such unabridged discretion has any grounding in our Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.

You can read the full ruling here.

The city will no doubt appeal the ruling to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Watch this space.



Previous Post
Next Post


  1. Constitution hating socialist/marxist/communist liberal demonrats will never stop trying to decide your rights, or lack of, for you. Unfortunately they have vast control in government and the media that is just another arm of their machine.

    • Excellent news on this ruling. With this as precedent, we can now knock down our CA SB2 (Newsom’s duplicate version of NY’s law) that’s scheduled to take effect on January 1. Newsom and his Democrat Posse basically declared everything outside your home as “sensitive places” where CCW holders won’t legally be allowed to carry.

  2. The dems are the party of anti civil rights. They fought a war to keep slavery and they resisted the civil rights movement. They continue to this day to violate human and civil rights.

    Reparations need to be paid out of the democratic parties coffers. Any property, any assets they have need to be seized and sold to pay reparation. The party itself needs to be banned.

      • Comedy from Russian, now American, ‘Yakov Smirnoff’ :

        “In America, everyone is looking for party. “Where is party?”
        In Russia, Party look for you… 🙁 “

    • Two things: the Dem party of pre-civil war era was NOTHING LIKE today’s Dem party. Next, that war you mentioned was NOT fought to keep slavery. Not one bit. That twar was over the same issues plaguing us today.. will the amalgamated monstrous central government (fedgov) make all the decisions for everyone, or will states retain their RIGHTS to govern THEIR OWN sttate according to the voice of their constituents?

      The loss of that war did not end slavery. Nope. It was already falling apartm and the Sough neww it. They simply wanted ti trade with other nations as the North was able to, but selective tariffs made that imposssible. The South knew the rapidly expanding industrial developments would make slaveholding prohibitively expensive and untenable, and were working toward a fair and equitable solution. But when the Union prevailed, they did the worst thing possible.. overnight every slave in the South was declared “free”, AND they were also ordered by law to be turned out of the pantations on which they lived and worked. Millions, suddenly homless o trade or skills, no visible means of support, just turned out to their own devices. Think that went well? Nope. Did not.

      No question the Dem party should pay “reparattions” but not to former slaves and their descendants. That was so ling ago its a farce. Most of the blacks in the US today are not descended from slavery, but have immigrated here from other nations well after slavery was ended.
      Perhaps those who have been clearly harmed and damaged by the dems anti-gun laws should gett reparations.. like the woman who had a protection order from a judge against her ex husband, known to be violent (a major cause of her decision to divorce him) and was denied her God-given right to arms by her “wonderful” state (New Jersey, if memory serves, still as tyrannical as the worst other states) was accosted as she came home one night, in her own driveay, and was murdered by the very dirtbag named in the “protective” order. Nice job, NJ. Had she NOT had her right to arms denied, she COULD well have despatched the dirtbag before he cut her up so that she died. Perhaps HER family should get reparations for her loss, because the government of that state is precisely WHY she is dead. Denied her right to arms, (she had tried….) she was defenseless against the larger stronger man.

      • Why didn’t the south, the dems, simply take the moral high ground and free the slaves before firing at the north?

        • To use the modern Democrat parlance: they needed to provide a “safe space” for “people of color” away from those angry Republicans.

        • The secessionist states claimed that the election of the known anti-slavery Lincoln was the last straw. They feared the Northern states would force them to give up slavery, upon which their agricultural economies depended. Whether or not this was Lincoln’s intent is debatable, it certainly was the intent of the Abolitionists who made his election possible.

      • That was Carole Bowne, a widow, of Berlin N.J. she wasn’t married to her stalker and later murderer.


        Bowne filed a restraining order against (ex-boyfriend/roommate Michael) Eitel that March after abuses such as hitting her, smashing her face into her trucks dashboard, breaking her nose, splitting her face and strangling her.[10] Eitel violated the restraining order on many accounts by stalking, damaging her car, house and cyber bullying Bowne.[10] Bowne requested the Berlin Township Police to walk her into her house when she had finished work from 9 pm to 10 pm but was turned down due to a “lack of manpower”.[10] Only on one account was an arrest warrant issued. According to state law, police cannot be held liable for failure to protect citizens, with or without a civil protection order.

        As we all know here save for Dacian & Albert J. Hall “Police have NO duty to protect you” and as you said Bowne would likely be alive today if it wasn’t for N.J. draconian laws on the ownership and carrying of firearms for self-defense.

      • If the “War Of Southern Secession” WAS’NT about SLAVERY, why did the “Articles Of Secession” ratified by EVERY seceding state specifically MENTION SLAVERY as one of the reasons for their rebellion? Read ’em and weep, reb… I have and they are available online…

        • No one is suggesting that slavery wasn’t A REASON. Interestingly, some States wanted to secede from the South/Confederacy (which tells you it wasn’t just about slavery). Ultimately, all of the reasons given were about the 10th Amendment (which we still fight today – see immigration, marijuana, etc.)
          As far as why the South fired on Ft. Sumter. Easy. South Carolina had “seceded” from the Union and wanted their land back from the Federal Government.

      • If the Civil War was a war against Northern Aggression, for States’ Rights, or Lincoln’s War, rather than primarily over slavery, then please justify the following;

        The only “States’ Right” the South seceded over was SLAVERY. Their Constitution REQUIRED any new States added protect slavery. Tariffs such as taxation of ships WASN’T the major issue. The US Constitution prohibited States from taxing other States’ ships, but the CSA permitted it in Art. I Sec. 9.

        Here’re a few relevant points in the CSA Constitution about slavery. NONE called for its eventual elimination.

        “Art. I Sec. 9(4) – No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

        Art. IV Sec. 2(1) – The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges & immunities of citizens in the several States; & shall have the right of transit & sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves & other property; & the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.

        Art. IV Sec. 3(3) – The Confederate States may acquire new territory; & Congress shall have power to legislate & provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several states; & may permit them, at such times, & in such manner as it may by law provide, to form states to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory, the institution of negro slavery as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized & protected by Congress, & by the territorial government: & the inhabitants of the several Confederate States & Territories, shall have the right to take to such territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the states or territories of the Confederate states.”

        In his Cornerstone Speech, CSA VP Stephens declared disagreements over the enslavement of African Americans were the “immediate cause” of secession & that the Confederate constitution had resolved such issues, saying:

        “‘The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution – African slavery as it exists among us – the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture & present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the ‘rock upon which the old Union would split.’ He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact.”

        But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood & stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him & most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally & politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent & pass away. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, & the idea of a Government built upon it—when the “storm came & the wind blew, it fell.”‘

        Stephens contended that advances & progress in the sciences proved that the 18th-century view that “all men are created equal” was erroneous & that all men were not created equal. He stated that advances in science proved that enslavement of African Americans by white men was justified & that it coincided with the Bible’s teachings.

        He also stated that the Confederacy was the 1st country in the world founded on the principle of racial supremacy:

        “Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural & normal condition. This, our new government, is the 1st, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, & moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science.”

        Stephens stated that the Confederacy’s belief in human inequality was adhering to the “laws of nature”:

        “May we not therefore look with confidence to the ultimate universal acknowledgment of the truths upon which our system rests? It is the 1st government ever instituted upon the principles in strict conformity to nature, & the ordination of Providence, in furnishing the materials of human society. Many governments have been founded upon the principle of the subordination & serfdom of certain classes of the same race; such were & are in violation of the laws of nature. Our system commits no such violation of nature’s laws.”

        The phrases “laws of nature” & “all men are created equal” from the US Declaration of Independence had formed part of the basis of Lincoln’s assertion that he was defending the principles of the Founding Fathers by being opposed to slavery. Democrats such as John Calhoun & Stephen Douglas had differing views on what the latter phrase meant. Calhoun had contended that the idea was peculiar to Thomas Jefferson & not a universal principle whereas Douglas maintained that it referred to white men only. In this context, Stephens’ assertion has been read as validating Lincoln’s interpretation of the US Founding Fathers’ principles, but countering with an assertion of “racial inequality”.

        Now, you can deny the above. However, SLAVERY was the primary reason for secession & the Civil War. So I suggest you read the CSA Constitution, Stephen’s speech, and the Compromises and border conflicts that led to the Civil War.

        • The Southern States felt that the new Territories should decide whether slavery should exist within those territories, not the Federal Government.
          The south certainly didn’t want to give up slavery. But they had other issues, including (much as today) immigration, gun laws, civil rights, etc, with the Federal Government. It wasn’t so much “The North”…

      • “Next, that war you mentioned was NOT fought to keep slavery. Not one bit.”

        Then why did several states, including my home state of Texas, specifically call out the end of or curtailment of slavery as an economic system as a reason for their seperation in their Articles of Confederacy?

        We don’t have to wonder what the reasons where. States list them. In the case of many states, they list slavery as a cause.

    • Least we forget ‘Trail of Tears’ and breaking of all treaties, ‘Woman suffrage’, ‘Intern Camps’, ‘segregation’, and now the embrace of terrorists. Won’t get into agenda 2030 ATM.

    • I’ll bet the ink isn’t dry yet on the new Anti 2A legislation. That will be introduced and passed by the end of the year. As long as the ideology and those who support it are allowed. They will always be a threat to the 2nd A. Liberal/Progressive Democrats play the long game against 2A Rights. They will continue to pass anti 2A legislation, regardless of any decision made by the Courts. Including the Supreme Court. With the belief that eventually the political winds will change to a more favorable position, in regards to their ideology. Just like they have changde to a more Constitutional Rights position in the last 8 years.

  3. We need consequences for those that write, vote for, support and enforce any laws found obviously unconstitutional. Exile works for me….

    • Thats the job of ‘We the People’. Just like the Founding Patriots did to the British Crown. The problem is the ‘people’ have no desire to do so. Most would rather whine and bitch about it.

  4. I told you the blue states would just ignore the Bruen ruling. Then it just gets passed to the limbo of the appeals and district courts. Meanwhile, citizens are deprived of their rights, and still other states are encouraged to pass un-Constitutional laws and infringe on citizen rights.

    Is their any way Clarence and Sam can short circuit this bullshit and make a summary ruling?? I’m not a lawyer, but there’s gotta be some way for it to be done.

    • For the most part moving quickly through the district court level and will be a wild ride once any circuit sounds off

    • They, the Demoncraps, will continue to do this ie.engaging in “Lawfare” until the end of time, it’s not their money they are spending it’s the taxpayers. What makes it worse is pro-2nd Amendment citizens are funding both sides of cases as their tax dollars are being spent to deny them their rights while at the same time they’re contributing to organizations that have taken up their cause. It’s one reason I fled N.J. for SW VA. after being denied a CCW permit post Sandy Hook and losing my appeal, in fact I got the same denial letter word-for-word save for the last three sentence paragraph that the Picatinny Arsenal Lt. Colonel featured here at TTAG got and he applied in a county one hundred plus (100+) miles away from me. It appears the N.J. Superior Court judges were using a “form letter” for denials.

      The only solution is to change the laws making governors/attorney generals/legislators financially liable (which is highly unlikely as they (or shall I say Bloomberg-type groups author the legislation) or start stringing up the tyrants after their edicts have been declared “unconstitutional”.

  5. The SORE LOSERS in the City of New York are NOT passing unconstitutional laws and filing appeals when they lose by using their own PERSONAL funds but those funds paid by taxpayers and entrusted to them. These stupid thieving idiots never seem to realize that every time they try to have things THEIR way after righteous rulings only erodes confidence in the representative from of govt. which will someday FAIL altogether because of such stupid people in office.

  6. There is a case now pending in California challenging a similar “good moral character” requirement is encompassed within the new CCW law that goes into effect on January 1, 2024. Which of course the State will vigorously defend; in facvt, AG Bonta sent a letter to all sheriffs after Bruen advising them that the “good moral character” requirement on the existing statute was still valid and should be enforced. Now the state has doubled down in the new statute and required three character references to go along with the application, including one from one’s significant other. It hould not survive, but the Ninth Circuit will find a way….

    • The LASD CCW application page still shows “good moral character” as one of the requisites, which was there pre-Bruen. Oh, and take a look at the fees involved. That’s not including the training course and LiveScan BGC, which together set me back almost $800.

  7. The thing about the New York leaders (AKA the mafia) is they will find a way to get around this even if they lose the appeal. They need to be held in contempt of court and locked up until they agree to abide by the law.

  8. Until federal courts begin handing down findings of contempt, and clear violation of the rights of their constituents in cases like this, hauling those who wrote and perhaps even voted in favour of these travesties called “laws”, this charade will continue. Add in perhaps steep fines to restore the public funds wasted in the legislative process to enact these things, and for certain the costs of litigation when they lose.. from the very pockets of those who drafted, promoted, voted for, these reasonous “laws”

    I would also add to the list of those needing rue justice meted out to them the law enforcement agens\cies and individuals ESPECIALLY them) who enforced the unconstitutional “laws”.

    • Your wanting the fedgov to step in and enforce its will is a bit hypocritical in light of your post above.

  9. rinse, lather, rinse, repeat. NYC has unlimited funding for this but not a dime to help the subjects, not citizens, there are none in NYS, who really could use the money. Damned democrat traitors.

  10. Time and time again sneaky Gun Control democRats have used the violent acts of criminals to chisel away at the 2A rights of the law abiding. With more and more Americans hungry to exercise their right of self defense the time for democRat Party Gun Control schemes and scams is up.

  11. The simple fact that all these leftist shtstains, (and plenty of RINOs, too), continue to fight tooth and nail against the restoration of our RTKBA in the wake of the Hamas attacks and the consistent (albeit too little too late) arming of civilian populations of Israel and Ukraine while they themselves enjoy armed security details says all that I need it to. Pathetic, un-American, and downright inhumane.

  12. Arrest the jerks!

    Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.
    For the purpose of Section 242, acts under “color of law” include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that official’s lawful authority, if the acts are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and others who are acting as public officials. It is not necessary that the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of the victim.

    The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a life term, or the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances of the crime, and the resulting injury, if any.

      • thinking about this forcing settlements and legal defense bills where they lose out of the budgets of these departments would be a good idea…….

      • @Chris

        “It very conspicuously does NOT list ‘legislators’ as being covered … what a surprise.”

        it does list them, just not by capacity title. it does it with …others who are acting as public officials. legislators are public officials.

  13. And a shudder of absolute terror rips through the hearts of theBiden’s BATFEces.
    The Judge say’s
    ” We dont care what a judge says. Our President is above judges, above laws, above it all because nobody fcks with a Biden. And we work for him. Judges, hah.”

  14. NY Governor: “We’re going to decide which law abiding people can or can not exercise the Second Amendment right and may give them permission as we see fit.”

    Constitution: “Nope, it shall not be infringed.”

    SCOTUS : “Nope, it shall not be infringed.”

    NY Governor: “Ok then, we are going to call it ‘public safety’ and make it as unlikely as possible to exercise the Second Amendment by deciding where and when a law abiding person may exercise their Second Amendment right plus we still will decide if WE may decide that we decide.”

    Federal court : “Nope …. it shall not be infringed.”

    Ya think NY has no concept of what the word ‘hint’ means?

  15. Is anyone really naive enough to believe New York will pay the slightest bit of attention to the depraved nut cases on the Supreme Court. New York will simply introduce another law even more draconian than this one.

    • Eventually, the Courts will find the State of New York and the members of its Legislature and the Governor, Joker Hochul, with Contempt and fine them in an amount which will curtail this lunacy of you anti-gun radicals.

  16. The post-Bruen laws anywhere aren’t going to fool any judge. However, fellow traveler judge fools will try to twist their decisions to let them be legal for a while until they are eventually overturned. The 9th Circuit enbanc panel couldn’t overturn Benitez’s well-written rulings in the Bonta cases if they were being intellectually honest and impartial, but they are partisan hacks, so they’ll find some excuse that matches their desired outcome.

Comments are closed.