Image 01 Image 03

New Legislation Designates Times Square a Gun-Free Zone Despite Recent Ruling, Appeal

New Legislation Designates Times Square a Gun-Free Zone Despite Recent Ruling, Appeal

It’s infuriating that these people still think criminals will abide by these laws.

New York City Mayor Eric Adams signed a new law making Times Square a gun-free zone despite a federal judge finding the state-level law saying the same thing unconstitutional.

From The New York Post:

“Today we enshrine in law that Times Square is a gun-free zone. Licensed gun carriers and others may not enter this area with a gun unless otherwise specifically authorized by law, but we’re not stopping here,” said Adams during a press conference alongside Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg and other elected officials.

Adams said the tourists should not “live in fear or distrust that someone is walking around with a gun ready to harm them.”

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg said: “It is plain, good old common sense that no one should have a gun in Times Square.”

It’s infuriating that these people still think criminals will abide by these laws. Criminals do not care. In fact, it might embolden them because they know few people will have a gun on them.

Federal Judge Glenn Saddaby blocked the part of the state law banning guns in Times Square and other “sensitive” locations:

Based on the historical analogues located thus far, it does not appear permissible for New York State to restrict concealed carry in the following place: “the area commonly known as Times Square, as such area is determined and identified by the city of New York; provided such area shall be clearly and conspicuously identified with signage” (as stated in subsection “2(t) of the CCIA). Granted, one might argue that historical statutes banning the carrying of guns in “fairs or markets” are analogous to this prohibition. However, thus far, only two such statutes have been located.42 Setting aside the fact that the first one appears to apply only to carrying a gun offensively (“in terror of the Country”), and the fact that the second one appears to depend on royal reign, as stated before, two statues do not make a tradition.

“Although historical analogues certainly exist prohibiting carrying firearms in specific places, no historical analogues have been provided prohibiting carrying firearms virtually everywhere, as the CCIA does,” Suddaby concluded.

The law stays in effect because of a motion filed by New York State Attorney Letitia James.

Stephen Louis, Executive & Chief of the Legal Counsel Division, NYC Law Department, said the city would continue to enforce the New York gun law as they’re “waiting on an appeal while the attorney general has begun the appeal process to the Second Circuit.”


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Except for criminals, pretty sure they are going to like that law!

    JohnSmith100 in reply to gonzotx. | October 12, 2022 at 12:17 pm

    This is all about destabilizing American cities, Marxists goal. I think that the majority of cities are no longer economical viable and decline is inevitable.

Leftists do not care if it is unconstitutional (illegal), they’ll do it anyway. (eviction moratorium, for instance) It’s an insurrection.

    4fun in reply to geronl. | October 11, 2022 at 9:29 pm

    There should be a law that would hold adams personally liable for any and all lawsuits when he signs a new law that flies in the face of the Constitution or any other court case. Make them pay out of their own pocket like the libs did to Palin.

      fscarn in reply to 4fun. | October 12, 2022 at 7:30 am

      Someday maybe the people (at least a majority of them) in safeguarding their Constitution will elect to office only those who really, really, really mean it when they take the Article VI oath of office.

      Milhouse in reply to 4fun. | October 12, 2022 at 9:59 am

      Holding legislators liable for the laws they pass would violate the principle of legislative immunity, which is enshrined in the US constitution. In the case of federal legislation, holding the congressmen who passed it, or the president who signed it liable would be literally unconstitutional. In the case of state or local legislators it wouldn’t literally violate the US constitution, but it would violate the same principle, and in most cases would violate the state or local constitution. (Of course federal legislation overrides state and local constitutions, but the principle is still there.)

      It would also violate the principle Jefferson championed, that each branch of government is entitled to its own view of the constitution. Of course Jefferson may have been wrong, but at least in his view such a law would be wrong because it would violate the separation of powers by imposing the judicial branch’s opinions on the legislature.

      No, the only remedy is for the people to stop electing legislators who ignore the constitution, which is never going to happen, so the alternative remedy is simply to challenge each unconstitutional law in the courts, the way we’ve done for more than 200 years.

        DaveGinOly in reply to Milhouse. | October 12, 2022 at 11:52 am

        Although I generally agree, I also think that by becoming a party to a suit in a court of law, everyone involved becomes subject to the authority of the court.

        What NYC and the state of NY are doing is contempt of court. Their conduct has been delimited by the court, and they are ignoring those limits.

          Milhouse in reply to DaveGinOly. | October 12, 2022 at 4:41 pm

          No, what they are doing is not in contempt of court. The order against the state has been stayed. By definition that means the state is completely entitled to continue enforcing the disputed law. It has the court’s explicit permission, so how can it be in contempt? And NYC isn’t even the subject of any court order, and isn’t even a party to any suit, so it certainly can’t be in contempt.

          Should NY lose its appeal, or should the stay on the lower court’s decision be lifted, then any attempt to continue enforcing its ban would be in contempt, but there is no reason to believe it would make such an attempt.

          But that has nothing to do with holding legislators liable. Even if the ban is completely struck down, and no longer enforceable, the legislators who passed it cannot be held liable for having done so. And Adams in this case is acting in his capacity as a legislator.

        What you’re not addressing is the fact they are illegally making laws that are illegal and were ruled illegal by the Supreme Court.
        So when they deliberately abuse their position as they are doing in this case they should be personally liable and have their personal financials as well as their personal freedom on the line for ignoring the laws.

          Milhouse in reply to 4fun. | October 13, 2022 at 11:03 am

          No, they’re not “illegally making laws that are illegal and were ruled illegal by the Supreme Court.” They are legally making laws that they claim to believe are legal, and that have not yet been ruled illegal by the supreme court. The only court that did rule such laws illegal explicitly gave them permission to keep enforcing them anyway, for now.

          In any case, legislators can never be liable for how they legislate. For US congressmen that is explicitly in the constitution; for state and local legislators the same principle holds.

          They are also not required to accept the Supreme Court’s view of what laws are legal; they are entitled to say “We disagree with the supreme court and will continue to pass such laws, understanding that the courts will not allow the executive branch to enforce them”. That’s what many state legislatures did with abortion in recent decades; they passed bans in anticipation of the day the Supreme Court would eventually change its mind and then they could be enforced. Do you think those legislators could be held liable for that?!

        Maz2331 in reply to Milhouse. | October 12, 2022 at 11:58 pm

        The Civil Rights Act was passed specifically to prevent states from violating rights enshrined in the Federal constitution. I can easily argue that NY officials are deliberately doing so in a manner that runs afoul of 18 USC 241 (Conspiracy Against Rights) and 18 USC 242 (Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law). While 241 might be read to only apply to private actions, 242 is dead nuts on target here.

        “Under Color of Law” means something that appears to be lawful, but isn’t in reality.

          Milhouse in reply to Maz2331. | October 13, 2022 at 11:05 am

          The Civil Rights Act prevents the states’ executive branches from enforcing such laws. It cannot prevent state legislative branches from making them in the first place.

JackinSilverSpring | October 11, 2022 at 9:15 pm

What this bozo is doing is patently in violation of the Supreme Court decision. I hope he gets smacked down good. That’s in addition to NYS continuing to make it impossible to get concealed carry permits.

    TheOldZombie in reply to JackinSilverSpring. | October 11, 2022 at 9:30 pm

    This is when I wish the courts would see stuff like this and just skip the line for these cases. Let SCOTUS just grab the first lawsuit over this law and smash New York State and City into the ground.

    It takes to long to get any real results. By the time you do the state is now doing something else to mess with firearms.

      The Gentle Grizzly in reply to TheOldZombie. | October 11, 2022 at 9:34 pm

      But, who will enforce the rulings?

        TheOldZombie in reply to The Gentle Grizzly. | October 11, 2022 at 9:40 pm

        That’s another problem this country is facing. Courts make rulings and states like New York spit in their face and nothing seems to happen. There’s no enforcement.


          Milhouse in reply to TheOldZombie. | October 12, 2022 at 10:07 am

          That isn’t true. I challenge you to cite a case of a government defying a court order. But the order must first be made, which means the case must be brought and the court must consider the evidence and decide whether an order is warranted.

          In this case, for instance, there is not currently any order against NYC enjoining it from enforcing such a ban. There is one against the state, but it’s stayed, so the state has every legal right to continue enforcing its ban. That’s what a stay is for, after all. But the stay won’t last forever; either the state will win on appeal (extremely unlikely) or the stay will expire and it will have to comply. Because the only way it can enforce its ban is in court, so once the courts have decided the ban is invalid they’ll simply stop enforcing it.

          henrybowman in reply to TheOldZombie. | October 12, 2022 at 1:29 pm

          “I challenge you to cite a case of a government defying a court order.”
          I don’t have the time at the moment to do the research, but I’m sure I could easily find one in the area of election procedures and/or redistricting.

          Milhouse in reply to TheOldZombie. | October 12, 2022 at 4:41 pm

          I’m sure you can’t.

        Who is this “who” you ask about? “Who” will not enforce the rulings. “They” will not enforce the rulings either. So why not make all of Manhattan a “gun free zone” ? If it works for Times Square, won’t it work for all of Manhattan? One law or a thousand, who will read them? Not the criminals. And apparently the prosecutors are tired of being the only readers. So they have quit worrying about enforcement.

    But NYS is issuing carry permits on a regular basis. Isn’t that what the get out of jail free cards certain parties have are?

Adams said the tourists should not “live in fear or distrust that someone is walking around with a gun ready to harm them.”

Patially right. They should be able to walk around with their own weapons on them to defend themselves against the crazies like Mayor Adams who inhabit the street,

    JohnSmith100 in reply to gospace. | October 12, 2022 at 12:28 pm

    I think that SYG law should address and make clear that double tap is legal and that there shall not be any charges over its use. The last thing a victim needs is a wounded perp getting a 2nd chance.

    randian in reply to gospace. | October 12, 2022 at 1:01 pm

    They should be able to walk around with their own weapons on them to defend themselves

    Sure, except NY is like CA: no non-resident permits and no recognition of out of state permits.

Welcome to the age of that’s not funny and they’re not serious. That said, bring your scalpels and other bladed instruments. It works at Planned Parenthood. It works in South Africa. It works in China. It is a humane and socially just choice to relieve “burdens”. It was the weapon of Choice to open Rwandan abortion fields.

“It’s infuriating that these people still think criminals will abide by these laws.”

The laws aren’t about the criminals. They know criminals don’t care about the laws.

This is just a continuing effort to end legal gun ownership by any citizen without explicitly making a gun ban law. Make things so difficult for the law abiding citizen that eventually people on their own just give up and stop carrying guns or even owning them.

    henrybowman in reply to TheOldZombie. | October 12, 2022 at 2:10 am

    This. Thy’re no longer even pretending that this is about criminals. It’s about oppressing you and me, and we all know it. Along with tossing criminals back out onto the street with no bail to continue victimizing you and me, they need to make sure that we can’t effectively remove their threat either. The criminals have to have free rein. The criminals are their constituency, not us.

What part of unconstitutional do these retards not understand?

    Subotai Bahadur in reply to Ironclaw. | October 12, 2022 at 12:58 am

    More germane is what part of unconstitutional do “these retards” [Democrat officials] ever care about.

    Subotai Bahadur

    Milhouse in reply to Ironclaw. | October 12, 2022 at 10:11 am

    They don’t agree that the ban is unconstitutional; they think the courts are wrong. But they can’t enforce any law without going to court, and the courts won’t enforce invalid laws.

    First the state case must make its way through the appeals process. Once the state is no longer allowed to enforce its ban, then the city ban will immediately be challenged and struck down. There’s no point in challenging it now, because the courts will just say wait and see what happens in the state case.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair | October 12, 2022 at 1:31 am

There really has to be some sort of criminal charge against public officials who intentionally enact laws and regulations that they know are illegal/un-Constitutional but do so in order to just buy time while everything is slowly wending its way through the courts. In this case it’s particularly egregious since they are copying another law that has already been struck down. This is akin to a nuisance lawsuit that is not brought to be any sort of real suit but merely to take advantage of the process, itself.

On top of that, this is all pretty galling to those of us who remember what Times Square actually was before Rudy Guiliani, a Republican, took the Mayor’s office. It’s funny to go back and read what people thought when Rudy said he was going to clean up Times Square …

Adams said the tourists should not “live in fear or distrust that someone is walking around with a gun ready to harm them.”

Maybe jail the criminals caught using guns? Nah. No-bail release.

E Howard Hunt | October 12, 2022 at 3:56 am

Perhaps the street gangs will file an emergency appeal.

Leftist legislators don’t obey the law themselves but think that criminals will.

taurus the judge | October 12, 2022 at 5:56 am

I don’t even think this is about gun laws now.

I think this is about absolute total dominion of the left’s rule regardless of existing law or the Constitution and they are simply “pushing” to see how far and how much push they have to do to overcome the law.

So what happens when democrats just start ignoring court decisions they don’t like? Hasn’t the republic really ceased to exist at that point?

    wendybar in reply to joecinpa. | October 12, 2022 at 8:05 am

    Since WHEN do Progressives follow court decisions?? They think THEY are above the law, and they do whatever they want….like declaring NYC a Sanctuary city, then crying when illegals are being sent there to relieve the burden the border small towns are being forced to accept by this administration.

    Milhouse in reply to joecinpa. | October 12, 2022 at 10:13 am

    They can’t ignore court decisions, and they don’t. If the courts decide (as they will, eventually) that this ban is invalid, then they simply won’t enforce it. Any case brought against it will be dismissed, and the defendant’s lawsuit against the city for the attempt to enforce it will be upheld.

“It’s infuriating that these people still think criminals will abide by these laws.”

They don’t think any such thing. This isn’t about preventing violence as they claim it is.

Mayor Adams is running for president. This is a fund-raising appeal to the super woke. It will achieve its purpose.

It’s infuriating that these people still think criminals will abide by these laws.
It’s infuriating that you still think that’s why they’re doing this.

Good of him to make a law that the law-abiding can ignore as well as the criminals

If “This is a Gun-Free Zone” is constitutional, why not “This is a Civil Rights-Free Zone” or this is a “Non Voter ID Voting-Free Zone”?

‘Adams said the tourists should not “live in fear or distrust that someone is walking around with a gun ready to harm them.”’

No…though they will likely die in fear.

I expect that this will be as successful as posting signs at subway platforms saying “No Pushing People Onto Subway Tracks.”

    Subotai Bahadur in reply to Mr Moist. | October 12, 2022 at 3:03 pm

    To be honest, the best way for those not resident in NYC to deal with this is to NEVER be a tourist or visitor to NYC. And not to do any business in person there if it can be avoided. Why risk your life to give them money?

    Subotai Bahadur

I still don’t understand why government buildings, of any kind or description, are areas so sensitive they must be gun-free zones. The DMV isn’t a jail, for example. Why isn’t that being challenged too?

    Milhouse in reply to randian. | October 12, 2022 at 4:44 pm

    It was challenged, and the judge found that there is sufficient historical evidence that bans on carrying in government buildings were not seen as infringing the RKBA. Read the decision to see the evidence.

    henrybowman in reply to randian. | October 12, 2022 at 5:17 pm

    Social precedent. In my lifetime, Post Offices became gun-free zones… and largely because of a spate of shootings by postal employees against other postal employees. So of course the solution was to “put the whole class (i.e., the general public as well) in detention.”

    Rights destruction often follows the well-known path of “the felons’ veto,” even when the right involved is meant to protect you from felons.

Just another law hat criminals will not obey. Of course, criminals are not the point. The idea is simply to saddle the law abiding with yet another restriction, until piece by piece, nothing remains of their rights.

I laugh my ass off both at the author with the “infuriating”comment and the mayor with his @people with guns going to harm you” comment.
With or without the sign, there are criminals with guns who want to harm you.
It’s infuriating because tyrants want to disarm the law abiding citizens.
And the only reason for that is because they plan to oppress you.
Their plan is so evil that you would shoot back at them.
So you must first be disarmed.

On the same topic, how about the Tucson AZ city council member (Republican, no less) who claims the city attorney told him he is willing to enforce a federal law that doesn’t exist!