Fierce Patriots

Conservative Political News

  • Subscribe

<![CDATA[bear arms]]>

New York park that's home to 130,000 people will soon be a massive “gun-free zone”

by Leave a Comment

In his majority opinion in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas warned lawmakers not to try to declare the entire island of Manhattan a “sensitive place” off-limits to lawful concealed carry licensees, but he didn’t say anything about Adirondack Park, which is the biggest park in the lower 48 states and home to about 130,000 residents. Those folks, many of them gun owners already, are now in the crosshairs of the state’s post-Bruen restrictions on the right to carry, after the state legislature included the entirety of the park in its list of sensitive places where guns are banned outright.

Reuters reports that, just a couple of weeks before the new laws take effect, many residents are up in arms, figuratively speaking, about what the new laws will mean to them and how they’ll be enforced.

“It pretty much means I’ve got to leave the firearm at home,” said Rick Bennett, who sells guns and fishing tackle from his store in the hamlet of North Creek.

… People who run summer camps, which in themselves are a new sensitive location, wonder if popular riflery courses for children are now a crime. Up at Mount Van Hoevenberg, a former Winter Olympics venue inside the park, it is unclear how the annual biathlon, a sport mixing skiing with target shooting, can proceed. It will be a felony to have a gun at sports venues.

… Bennett said he got his concealed-carry gun license in 1980 and loves heating up canned venison from last season’s hunt in a skillet.

His loaded Kimber 9mm pistol was tucked as usual into his waistband as he drove through the mountains across a patchwork quilt of different land types. He worried that if he gets pulled over in the wrong place one day and is convicted of the new gun possession felony, he will lose his guns.

For miles, the paved road crossed swatches of private property, which lawmakers said will automatically become restricted locations if owners don’t post signs saying guns are welcome.

Loose bullets rolled around in his truck’s dashboard tray as he turned onto the rocky 4-mile (6-km) track to his family’s lakeside cabin, winding through the state-owned Vanderwhacker Mountain Wild Forest, which will become a sensitive location, according to the bill’s sponsors.

Bennett doesn’t just have to worry about losing his guns if he’s caught carrying in the rural mountain places. He could be looking at prison time. Under the new laws slated to go into effect on September 1st, it’s considered a “violent felony” offense to carry a firearm into a “sensitive place,” and the law’s chief sponsor says that includes Adirondack Park. Ironically, under the state’s previous carry regulations those granted even a “restricted” carry license could generally carry in sparsely populated rural areas like the park; a provision that the state’s attorneys pointed to in trying to defend the state’s “may issue” laws. After SCOTUS slapped down those statutes, however, New York Democrats declared open season on the right to bear arms in self-defense.

Jeffrey Dinowitz, a Democratic assembly member from the Bronx in New York City, said the bill he co-sponsored was a reasonable response to what he called a wrongly decided opinion by “highly politicized, right-wing justices.”

The week after the law passed, the office of Governor Kathy Hochul, also a Democrat, said state-owned Forest Preserve land in the park, about two-fifths of the park’s area, should not be considered sensitive locations, contradicting the bill’s sponsors. More than half of the park is private land.

“They rushed this through without anyone getting to vet it,” said Dan Stec, a Republican state senator from the park’s south. He proposed amending the law to exclude Adirondack Park public lands. Dinowitz said he opposed the amendment, while Hochul’s office did not respond to that question.

Hochul’s statement doesn’t carry any legal weight, so if she wanted to exempt the park and the 130,000 or so people who live inside its confines the time to have done that would have been while these gun control bills were being crafted. Instead, as Sen. Stec pointed out, the state legislature rushed through these new laws without giving law enforcement (much less the general public) a chance to weigh in or even see the legislative text before it was approved.

County clerks involved in the gun-license system and at least one Adirondacks district attorney say the law is confusing. Residents don’t know what to think.

“I’m not even sure that you could actually stop and use the bathroom if you had to between you and the gun range,” said John Bowe, president of the Dunham’s Bay Fish and Range Club.

The plaintiffs who won the pro-gun Supreme Court ruling live just south of the Adirondacks, including Tom King, the president of the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, the state affiliate of the National Rifle Association.

“I have gotten hundreds of calls from people from the Adirondacks,” King said, “and all I can say is that there are going to be lawsuits.”

We’ve already seen several lawsuits filed in response to the state’s pending gun control laws, but the more the merrier as far as I’m concerned. I just hope that they can put a halt to these new infringements on our Second Amendment rights before they do any harm to legal gun owners.

NY public defenders citing SCOTUS in challenges to gun arrests

by Leave a Comment

One of the most powerful amicus briefs filed in the Bruen case came from a group of public defenders in New York, who pointed out the racial disparities in arrests for the “violent” crime of simply carrying a gun without a carry license as well as the clearly unconstitutional nature of New York’s “may issue” permitting scheme. So it shouldn’t come as a shock that public defenders have been citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Bruen in recent cases; arguing that their clients are facing charges for trying to exercise a civil right.

In motions filed in three separate cases on July 15, public defenders with the Legal Aid Society in Brooklyn asked judges to dismiss gun possession cases against their clients, arguing that in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen the U.S. Supreme Court made “no distinction” between the unconstitutionality of the state’s gun licensing standards and the penal laws against carrying guns without a permit.

“The Second Amendment demands this Court’s ‘unqualified deference’ and is ‘not a second-class right,’” the boilerplate motions declare, pointing to the high court’s evisceration of “Sullivan’s Law,” a 1911 New York gun permit statute. “The Supreme Court has already ruled that New York’s Sullivan Law is unconstitutional, and the crimes alleged here are part of that law.”

Those three cases are still pending. THE CITY also identified four similar motions by other defense attorneys in gun cases in Manhattan and the Bronx, which judges have rejected.

In a statement, Tina Luongo, chief attorney of the Criminal Defense Practice at the Legal Aid Society, stood by the organization’s full court press.

“As we have always done, we will advance all valid and available legal arguments in defense of our clients and continue to urge policymakers to focus on real solutions to gun violence, which lie outside of the criminal legal system,” Luongo said.

Luongo is right that these cases involve individuals arrested and charged for violating New York’s Sullivan Act, and the Supreme Court did throw out the law’s “good cause” requirement because it’s unconstitutional, but so far that argument hasn’t swayed any judges. In fact, as the website The City reports, one private defense attorney who raised a similar challenge in his client’s case had his argument rejected by a Manhattan judge.

“Defendant misreads Bruen as eviscerating the police powers of the State to address criminality, or as applying to anyone other than law-abiding citizens,” wrote Judge Robert Mandelbaum.“Failing to seek a license before roaming the streets with a loaded firearm is not abiding by the law, and nothing in the Second Amendment requires that it be tolerated. The Constitution is not a suicide pact. The motion to dismiss is denied.”

I wonder if the judge would have ruled differently if this individual had applied for a carry permit but had been rejected because the NYPD found he didn’t have “good cause”.

Of course, one of the reasons why the number of applicants for a NYC carry license has been so low is that there’s been a general expectation that average citizens will be denied. Couple that with the fact that the application fee is a whopping $340 and it becomes clear that New York City has disincentivized applying for a carry permit and has artificially depressed the number of applicants in any given year.

That probably won’t matter to any anti-gun judges intent on minimizing the impact of the Supreme Court’s decision in Bruen, but I’m glad to see these public defenders try to make their case. Unfortunately for these attorneys and their future clients, New York’s gun control laws are still so restrictive and facially unconstitutional that there are going to be plenty of opportunities to raise this argument in the future, and plenty of defendants sentenced to years in prison for the “violent” felony of bearing arms without a government permission slip.

New York State Sheriff's Association blasts Democrats' new gun control laws

by Leave a Comment

Some of those who’ll actually have to enforce New York’s latest gun control laws are speaking out against them, as well as the obscene rush to pass the laws with no public debate and little to no time for lawmakers to even read the text of the legislation. The New York State Sheriff’s Association isn’t pulling many punches either, noting this rush to “do something” is how the state ended up with its incredibly unpopular and ineffective bail reform laws.

Here’s the full statement, with discussion to follow. I’ve bolded a few of the most interesting takeaways.

Once again the New York State Legislature has seen fit to pass sweeping new criminal justice laws that affect the rights of millions of New York citizens, and which impose burdensome new duties on local government officials, without any consultation with the people who will be responsible for carrying out the provisions of those new laws.  This has become a habit with the Legislature and has resulted in other criminal justice disasters such as New York’s so-called Bail Reform Law.

Some action by the Legislature was necessary to fill the firearms licensing vacuum created when the Supreme Court struck down New York’s unconstitutional restrictions on our citizens’ right to keep and bear arms.  But it did not need to be thoughtless, reactionary action, just to make a political statement.

The new firearms law language first saw the light of day on a Friday morning and was signed into law Friday afternoon.  A parliamentary ruse was used to circumvent the requirement in our State Constitution that Legislators — and the public — must have three days to study and discuss proposed legislation before it can be taken up for a vote.  The Legislature’s leadership claimed, and the Governor agreed, that it was a “necessity” to pass the Bill immediately, without waiting the Constitutionally required three days, even though the law would not take effect for two full months.  Consequently, law enforcement agencies and the courts, which bear most of the responsibility for implementing the new licensing laws, were deprived of any opportunity to point out to Legislators the burdensome, costly, and unworkable nature of many of the new laws’ provisions.  And, of course, our citizens, whose rights are once again being circumscribed, probably again in unconstitutional ways, had no opportunity to communicate their concerns to their legislative representatives.

We want to be clear: The Sheriffs of New York do strongly support reasonable licensing laws that aim to assure that firearms do not get into the wrong hands.  We do not support punitive licensing requirements that aim only to restrain and punish law-abiding citizens who wish to exercise their Second Amendment rights.  If we had been consulted before passage of these laws, we could have helped the Legislators discern the difference between those two things, and the result would have been better, more workable licensing provisions that respect the rights of our law-abiding citizens and punish the lawbreakers.

Makes me wonder if we’re not going to see another round of Second Amendment Sanctuaries in New York in the near future, honestly. Why not? Democratic prosecutors in red states are now refusing to enforce abortion laws. Why shouldn’t New York sheriffs do the same when it comes to these new restrictions on law-abiding gun owners?

While we might see that in a handful of counties, that’s not the only thing these sheriffs can do to vocally and effectively oppose these new laws. What about individual sheriffs hosting a public forum on the implementation of these news laws and explain to residents exactly why these new restrictions are so burdensome, expensive, and unworkable? The public, especially in New York, is getting a steady diet of pro-gun control messaging, and a face-to-face conversation with sheriffs who oppose much of what the Democrats have now enshrined into law would be hugely valuable in the court of public opinion.

In the court of law, the NYSSA can and should  support the inevitable legal challenge to New York’s reactionary restrictions rammed through in the wake of the Bruen decision. Once the case reaches the appellate court, a friend of the court brief arguing against the very laws that they’re supposed to enforce could carry a lot of weight.

I’m glad to see the sheriffs speak out, even if it’s a little more milquetoast than my personal preference. I just hope it’s their opening statement and not the last word of their objections to these new and unconstitutional restrictions they’re being told to enforce.

Maryland bends the knee to NYSRPA v. Bruen

by Leave a Comment

What seemed like it was going to take some pulling of teeth, apparently did not take that long, at all really. Maryland has dropped their “Good and substantial reason” requirements from their permit to carry application process. The Maryland concealed carry permit, officially called the “handgun wear and carry permit”, was as much of an impossibility for the non-gentry to receive as they are/were in other may issue jurisdictions. Whenever I talk to people in free America, Maryland has always been towards the top of the list on gross infringements to our liberties, just after Hawaii, New Jersey, New York, and California. Great crab cakes, crumby grasp of fundamental freedoms. On July 5, 2022, the Maryland State Police issued an “Advisory”, wherein Governor Larry Hogan directed the requirement to be dropped from the process.

Governor Larry Hogan today issued the following statement:

“Over the course of my administration, I have consistently supported the right of law-abiding citizens to own and carry firearms, while enacting responsible and common sense measures to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill.

“Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a provision in New York law pertaining to handgun permitting that is virtually indistinguishable from Maryland law. In light of the ruling and to ensure compliance with the Constitution, I am directing the Maryland State Police to immediately suspend utilization of the ‘good and substantial reason’ standard when reviewing applications for Wear and Carry Permits. It would be unconstitutional to continue enforcing this provision in state law. There is no impact on other permitting requirements and protocols.

“Today’s action is in line with actions taken by other states in response to the recent ruling.”

While patriots and lovers of freedom would have loved to have seen on the morning after Thomas’s birthday bash all of the stubborn states fall in line immediately, we all knew that was not likely. What is promising though, is that some of these jurisdictions seem to be trying to do the right thing. Of course, the proof will be in the pudding. I’m looking forward to seeing the large swaths of newly minted concealed carry permit holders holding up their cards in front of their state houses to let the pinkos know that freedom actually won on this one. We shall see.

The state police in Maryland did offer a note about making changes to the system and gave guidance on how to fill out a permit to wear and carry application.

The Maryland State Police Licensing Division is in the process of updating the Licensing Portal to reflect these changes. Until these updates are complete, applicants submitting a Wear and Carry Permit application are directed to select “Personal Protection / Category Not Listed Above” as their “Handgun Permit Category”. Applicants are not required to attach documents to the “PERSONAL PROTECTION DOCUMENTATION” section on the “Upload Documents” page of the Wear and Carry Permit application.

Additional information and a link to the Licensing Portal, can be found on the Maryland State Police website. Maryland State Police Licensing Division.

The memo is clearly circulating, and while some states are still kicking and screaming, others are slowly getting the message. Is the fight over? Absolutely not. It’s just begun in many ways. Seeing Maryland take a similar approach that New Jersey did, at least on paper, is promising, especially given the state’s own history with permit to carry denial challenges. Will there be any games in Maryland about issuing these permits, any hidden pitfalls? We’re fixing to find out.

Like all these other newly folded policies, we’ll have to wait to see how things work out practically. Hopefully it’s not too soon to offer our congratulations to our crabcake munching freedom lovers in the Old Line State. We’ll be watching and reporting back with any developments on the issue.

New York gun group promises swift response to new carry restrictions

by Leave a Comment

Full disclosure: I was hoping to share an interview that I conducted with Tom King, the executive director of the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, on today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co but the internet ate my homework. Thanks to technical issues I can’t share the video of our conversation, but I can at least relay what Tom told me about the group’s anticipated response to New York Democrats’ attempt to undermine the Supreme Court’s decision in NYSPRA v. Bruen by passing a host of new restrictions on the right to carry, including widespread bans on carrying in publicly accessible spaces, onerous new training requirements, and more.

King says NYSPRA is ready to go back to court to ensure that that victory won at the Supreme Court a week ago isn’t undone by anti-gun lawmakers, who were set to introduce and approve their new restrictions on the very same day without any public input or testimony. In fact, as of 10:30 this morning King says he’d been told that none of the Republicans in the New York State Senate had been able to see the legislation that they’d be voting on within just a few hours. Apparently that’s because there was no bill at that point. Check out this update from around 4 p.m. Eastern:

Three hours after the special legislative session in Albany officially began at noon, the gun bill and proposed Equality Amendment were still being hammered out behind closed doors.

Sen. Zellnor Myrie, a Brooklyn Democrat, emerged from discussions around 3 p.m. and told reporters the gun legislation was nearly completed, with some details still unresolved but agreement among leaders of the two chambers on the overall content.

“I think we’re very, very close,” he said.

Myrie said the proposal was so vital to public safety that lawmakers and the administration were focused on ensuring it would comply with the Supreme Court decision and withstand any legal challenges. Among the topics still under discussion was what types of public places would be classified as “sensitive areas” where carrying guns is forbidden.

“This is such an important public safety bill; we want to make sure that it isn’t subject to attack,” he said.

Oh, it’s going to be subject to “attack” by Second Amendment supporters, and if the law’s intent is that the average New Yorker is prevented from exercising their right to carry in public (with a few “extraordinary” exceptions for “sensitive places” for the purposes of self-defense, then it’s going to get tossed.

It’s funny… for decades now the state has had their “may issue” laws in place and never saw fit to require any sort of training or limit the places where the chosen few could carry a firearm. As of today, in fact, the 4,000 or so New York City residents who possess a handgun carry permit are free to take their firearms with them on subways and buses, but now that the Supreme Court has ruled that everyday New Yorkers, not just the powerful, wealthy, and well-connected (as well as a paltry few who could demonstrate a “justifiable need”) can carry a gun to protect themselves from violent criminals, Gov. Kathy Hochul and her fellow Democrats have suddenly found it necessary to impose a host of new restrictions that they’re apparently coming up with on the fly.

If these laws are so sensible, why didn’t Democrats try to put them in place before now? If they’re so sensible, why can’t the public weigh in on them before lawmakers approve them? In fact, how can you call something sensible when you haven’t even written it yet?

What Hochul and her anti-gun allies in the legislature are doing is nothing more than defying the Supreme Court and continuing to put the lives and safety of New Yorkers at risk by putting in place laws that are designed to inhibit their right to bear arms in self-defense. Meanwhile, what happens when one of their own allegedly violates the state’s gun control laws? They’re allowed to avoid prosecution and felony charges, naturally.

Tom King knows how frustrating this is for New York gun owners, but he encouraged them to “keep the faith” during our conversation today. As long as the Democrats in charge of the state continue to violate the Second Amendment rights of residents, King says the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association will haul them into court and hold them to account.