We knew that the gun rights infringers would lose their every loving minds if Bruen was decided in favor of gun rights. The decision is great not because it struck down New York State and City “may issue but not likely” permitting scheme but because it reaffirmed that the people have a right to self defense outside of their homes.
It reaffirmed that ordinary people have the right to carry a weapon for self defense.
Most importantly it stated clearly that the second amendment will be treated as a real guarantee of our rights. No more two tier means-end balancing.
Unfortunately the opinion left a few gotchas in place. The first was “sensitive places” and the other was “reasonable permitting regulations.”
While some states have issued guidance that makes the state “shall issue” others are fighting back. Massachusetts issued guidance that the good cause is no longer needed but everything else about getting a permit is still in place. In my opinion this means that the question of why I want a permit is answered with “All lawful purposes”. California did similar and I believe New Jersey did as well.
Unfortunately places like New York have hit on an attack vector that we expected. New Jersey is looking to go down the same path.
In short, they are going to define as many places as possible as “sensitive” and make them gun free zones. In addition, they are making violations of gun free zones felonies. This means that a CCW that is carrying can lose their rights because they happen to enter one of the many many forbidden zones.
The other way they are making it impossible to carry is by creating a default gun free zone for all private property. The wording is a little unclear but it seems to say that it requires both the owner of the property and the lessee to agree to allowing CCW on or in the property. By the wording it implies to me that in the case of the lessee posting a sign allowing and the owner not posting a sign the CCW could still be in violation.
Note the “on or in” clause.
Imagine if you would that you are a CCW carrier and you decide to go for a drive. You glance at your gas gauge and determine you need gas. You pull into your local gas station to pump some gas. As you do you are now on the property. If there is no sign saying your firearm is permitted, you just committed a felony.
On a practical note, they law calls for “clear and conspicuous signage indicating that the carrying of firearms … is permitted…”. It will not surprise me when we find out that the regulations on signage will require the businesses to buy expensive signs. Consider a simple MUTCD compliant STOP sign is $75 dollars, what do you think a NYS or NJ approved sign will cost?
I believe in both our right to self defense and our property rights. I personally have a rule that on our property if we are having a gathering of people that are not all gun people that concealed carry is allowed but open is not. We have some friends that are to scared of firearms to even look at them in person. That’s fine.
If a business wants to limit firearm possession in their place of business to criminals only, that is their choice. I’ll respect it and take my business else where.
There are many challenges dropping right now against all of the laws being put in place to get around the second amendment now that Bruen has been decided. I’m hoping that they move quickly.