First, a little history:

I was living in Illinois when Moore v Madigan was decided.  The 7th Court of Appeals struck down the Illinois prohibition on concealed carry.  Concealed carry was coming to the Land of Lincoln.

Illinois is a Midwestern state.  It was surrounded on all sides by shall issue states.

Yes, Chicago is a heavy weight player in Illinois, which is why it’s considered a Blue state, but in the internal wrangling of Illinois politics over concealed carry the Red counties (97 of the 101 counties in the state) really exerted every ounce of pressure they had.

The court established a deadline for when Illinois would have concealed carry in place.  If the state could not put together a concealed carry law, the state would default to Constitutional carry.

Blue districts wanted very restrictive may issue permits that were as impossible to get as NY permits.

Red state districts demanded shall issue or they would block the legislation from advancing and the state would default.

In the end Illinois had shall issue, but the Blue districts tried to make it as onerous as possible to dissuade people from getting permits.

The result was a background check with finger prints and 16 hours of training, and live fire qualifications.  The training was bullshit.

I’ve been through the 8 hour training mandated by Nebraska and North Carolina, and the 4 hours mandated by Florida.

By far, the Florida training if the most efficient.  Illinois training is like sitting through the Florida training four times.

It was either all day Saturday and Sunday or from 6:00 to 10:00 PM Monday through Thursday.  It was also expensive.  Meaning that working class people would have a difficult time both affording it and making time to attend the classes.

The difficulty was the point.

I tell you this story so that you understand how anti-gun Democrats can make complying with Court decision enforcing gun rights to be difficult as a barrier to stop people from using enjoying their rights.

So now let us turn to New York.

New York would require people applying for a handgun license to turn over a list of their social media accounts so officials could verify their “character and conduct” under a bill being considered Friday by the state Legislature. https://t.co/7rDdbV9zNU

— The Associated Press (@AP) July 1, 2022

From the article:

New York lawmakers approved a sweeping overhaul Friday of the state’s handgun licensing rules, seeking to preserve some limits on firearms after the Supreme Court ruled that most people have a right to carry a handgun for personal protection.

Hochul, a Democrat, called the Democrat-controlled Legislature back to Albany to work on the law after last week’s high-court ruling overturning the state’s longstanding licensing restrictions.

Backers said the law, which takes effect Sept. 1, strikes the right balance between complying with the Supreme Court’s ruling and keeping weapons out of the hands of people likely to use them recklessly or with criminal intent.

Among other things, the state’s new rules will require people applying for a handgun license to turn over a list of their social media accounts so officials could verify their “character and conduct.”

Applicants will have to show they have “the essential character, temperament and judgment necessary to be entrusted with a weapon and to use it only in a manner that does not endanger oneself and others.”

As part of that assessment, applicants have to turn over a list of social media accounts they’ve maintained in the past three years.

“Sometimes, they’re telegraphing their intent to cause harm to others,” Gov. Kathy Hochul, a Democrat, said at a news conference.

Gun rights advocates and Republican leaders were incensed, saying the legislation not only violated the Second Amendment, but also privacy and free speech rights.

The bill approved by lawmakers doesn’t specify whether applicants will be required to provide licensing officers with access to private social media accounts not visible to the general public.

Some humorless scold, the worst sort of Karen from HR is going to be reviewing your social media posts to decide on your character.

This is going to be as subjective as the may issue good cause requirement.

You know exactly what will get you denied.  Have you ever supported Trump?  Did you every say something negative about Cuomo?  Did you not post the Holy of Holies Pride Flag in June?  Did you ever call Biden “Pedo Joe?”

Pretty much if you are anything short of a dyed in the wool “Love is Love, We Stand With Ukraine, Orange Man Bad” Leftist, your character is not getting approved.

What if you don’t have social media?  Is that evidence of non-compliance or do they automatically deny you?  What about shared social media?  I’m just going to assume the worst here.

Plus, you just handed over your name and social media to the government, so who knows what else they will do with that.  Again, just assume the worst.

What they are doing is violating your First Amendment right to speak freely to apply for your right to exercise your Second Amendment right.

People applying for a license to carry a handgun will also have to provide four character references, take 16 hours of firearms safety training plus two hours of practice at a range, undergo periodic background checks and turn over contact information for their spouse, domestic partner or any other adults living in their household.

Again, 16 hours of training, and two hours of range time.  The range time requirement is odd.  Illinois only had an accuracy qualification.  If you shot it the first time you could be done in 15 minutes.

What do they expect you to do with two hours on the range?

I wonder what the accuracy qualification will be.  I used to shoot with a USPSA group that would do the NYPD annual qualification as two consecutive stages.  It was embarrassingly easy.

The contact information for other adults is egregious.  Is the point for the state to contact them as a reference or will they deny you a permit because of who they are?  Will you be denied a permit because you’re taking care of an elderly relative or you have a family member living with you that has fallen on hard times?  This seems particularly offensive in NYC where the cost living, rent controlled apartments, and tye high number of immigrant families, means that residencies are often multi generational with extended families.

People also won’t be allowed to carry firearms at a long list of “sensitive places,” including New York City’s tourist-packed Times Square.

That list also includes schools, universities, government buildings, places where people have gathered for public protests, health care facilities, places of worship, libraries, public playgrounds and parks, day care centers, summer camps, addiction and mental health centers, shelters, public transit, bars, theaters, stadiums, museums, polling places and casinos.

New York will also bar people from bringing guns into any business or workplace unless the owners put up signs saying guns are welcome. People who bring guns into places without such signs could be prosecuted on felony charges.

I guess residents of NYC won’t have to worry because all of NYC is a sensitive place.

If you can’t carry on public transportation you won’t be able to get around the city unless you own a vehicle (ride sharing services prohibit concealed carry and you know the Taxi services will too).

You might be able to carry from your apartment to the one business that says guns are welcome if you can walk there, but beyond that, you’re disarmed.

Moreover, no carry on the subways, Times Square, or in Central Park pretty much means no carry in the places you need it most.

All this does is tell criminals “if you want to rob and rape, do it in these locations.”

The guns are welcome aspect is also malicious. In Illinois, a business had to put up a sign that said concealed carry was prohibited, and there were rules as to how prominently that sign needed to be displayed.  No sign and the default was carry was allowed.

New York is making the default that carry is prohibited and the signage must say guns are welcome.

You understand the point of this, right?

Once a guns are welcome sign goes up, the expectation is that anti-gun New Yorkers will either know which businesses to boycott or know which businesses to boycott and harass.

Imagine the Facebook pages that will pop up of AWFLs caterwauling online that: “The [store/restaurant/business] in the building next to mine where I stop to [shop/eat/get serviced] says that guns are welcome.  I feel so unsafe with those evil ammosexual Nazis next door.  I’m never going to do business with them again. Everyone go online and give them a one star review on Yelp until they take that sign down or go out of business.”

New York is intent on thumbing their nose at the Supreme Court with malicious compliance.  Shall issue with so many onerous and subjective standards that it’s effectively may issue.

The only good news for New Yorkers is that their AWFL governor might have been so awful that it’s a violation of the Court’s ruling.

But some Republican lawmakers, opposed to tighter restrictions, argued the law violated the constitutional right to bear arms. They predicted it too would end up being overturned.

I agree.

“We replaced a subjective may issue with a subjective and equally impossible shall issue, that also includes political partisanship, so that the same number or fewer of permits are issued every year” is not compliance with the Court.

My hope is that lawsuits against this bill go up quickly.  Generally, courts don’t like it when their rulings are ignored or worked around in such as way as to be effectively undone.

I would love to see nothing more that Justice Thomas respond to Governor Hochul by gavel slapping her with a decision that effectively makes NY constitutional carry like Madigan almost did.