A Second Amendment advocacy group on Tuesday asked a federal judge to block a New York state law that bans the carry of firearms in certain “sensitive locations” such as stadiums, hospitals and Manhattan’s Times Square.
The request was part of a lawsuit brought by the Gun Owners of America against a New York law enacted this summer in the wake of a landmark Supreme Court decision expanding the Second Amendment.
The justices’ 6-3 decision in late June found the Constitution generally protects the right to carry a firearm in public for self-defense. At the same time, the court said guns could be restricted in certain “sensitive locations,” but left that term largely undefined.
In response to the Supreme Court’s ruling, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) on July 1 signed a law that criminalizes the concealed carry of guns in airports, houses of worship, Times Square and other sensitive places, prompting a swift legal challenge.
Gun Owners of America is one of several plaintiffs who are urging a federal judge in Syracuse to block the New York law before it takes effect on Sept. 1.
During a hearing in the case on Tuesday, a lawyer for the gun rights group told U.S. District Judge Glenn Suddaby that the Supreme Court meant for the “sensitive location” exception to apply only to a “narrow group of places.”
“You know, government building, schools. But it’s not all of these places. Like, Times Square — it can’t be a sensitive place,” attorney Stephen Stamboulieh said. “It could be that Times Square is sensitive at certain times. But not all the time.”
Defending the law was James Thompson, a lawyer with the New York State Attorney General’s Office, who argued that New York’s Concealed Carry Improvement Act is “deeply rooted in American history.”
He said the Supreme Court’s recent June decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen recognized that “protecting people from guns in vulnerable places” is “presumptively lawful.”
A ruling on the plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction against the New York law is expected soon in the case, Antonyuk v. Bruen.