Guns will be allowed in some of NY's 'sensitive locations' for now

A federal appeals court ruled on Friday that most of New York’s sweeping concealed carry regulations can stay in effect while lower courts weigh in on legal challenges.

But there were a few key exceptions. The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals said the state cannot enforce three aspects of the law for now. Those include:

• A requirement that applicants for concealed carry permits provide a list of all their social media handles.
• A ban on carrying firearms in private properties that open to the public (like restaurants and stores)
• A ban on bringing guns into places of worship.

State lawmakers passed the Concealed Carry Improvement Act last year, in response to a U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down New York’s prior rules limiting gun carrying in public, which had been on the books for more than 100 years. The law added requirements to the application process for concealed carry permits and also banned gun owners — even most permit holders — from bringing firearms into so-called “sensitive locations,” including schools, public transportation and Times Square.

The law’s sensitive location ban has already been used to arrest a handful of people across the state, including New York City Councilmember Inna Vernikov, who was accused of bringing a pistol to a pro-Palestinian rally this fall as she counterprotested in support of Israel. Brooklyn prosecutors dropped those charges after they learned the gun was missing a piece when it was turned over to police, making it inoperable.

Many gun owners filed lawsuits against the state’s new law, arguing it went against the spirit of the ruling. A flurry of conflicting court rulings have struck down and reinstated aspects of the law in the year-and-a-half since. Today’s order is meant to mitigate confusion while the legal process plays out.

“Today's decision to permit the state to enforce critical provisions of the Concealed Carry Improvement Act as the court process moves forward will help keep New Yorkers safe,” Attorney General Letitia James said in a statement.

In a 261-page-ruling, a panel of judges said they “generally agree” that requiring concealed carry permit applicants to disclose all of their social media accounts — including those made under a pseudonym — is unreasonable.

“Conditioning a concealed carry license on such a disclosure imposes a burden on the right to bear arms that is without sufficient analogue in our nation’s history or tradition of firearms regulation,” the judges wrote.

They said the requirement would make applicants “forfeit” their right to pseudonymous free speech on social media, which has become an increasingly common venue for conversation.

The ruling found that a portion of the law that prohibits firearms on private property, unless the owners put up signs making clear that they’re allowed,   creates a default ban that “seriously burden[s] lawful gun owners’ Second Amendment rights.” That means for now, the expectation will be that firearms are allowed unless property owners explicitly say they’re not.

Firearms will also be allowed in places of worship, because the judges said prohibiting guns in those spaces would unfairly single them out. But, like other private property owners, churches, synagogues and mosques would be able to put up signs announcing that guns are not allowed on their premises.

Second Amendment supporters celebrated the ruling, while also expressing disappointment that more aspects of the law weren’t blocked, like a requirement for permit applicants to show they have “good moral character.”

“It’s encouraging that the Court blocked the intrusive social media provisions, but just as intrusive are the processes needed to confirm someone is ‘of good moral character,’ which the Court has inexplicably chosen to uphold,” Sam Paredes with the Gun Owners Foundation said in a statement. “Frustratingly, much of this Court’s opinion reads like an insubordinate rebuke of the Supreme Court, which is a disgrace and cannot be allowed to stand.”

Paredes said the foundation is considering appealing to the Supreme Court. The state attorney general’s office pledged to continue to defend the state’s gun laws.