| Translate This News In |
|---|
A federal judge in the United States blocked the enforcement of New York’s new gun law on Thursday, undermining the state’s efforts to control a key factor in rising homicides for the second time this year. The judge granted a temporary restraining order against a state law passed on July 1 and implemented on September 1 that severely restricted carrying firearms in “sensitive places” such as Times Square in New York City, bars, schools, and playgrounds.
The new law was enacted after the Supreme Court overturned New York’s previous gun laws in a landmark decision on June 23, ruling that they unlawfully limited a person’s right to carry a firearm in public.
However, gun rights advocates claimed that the new law, while designed to follow the Supreme Court ruling, in practise violated their constitutional rights to free speech and the possession of firearms.
Judge Glenn Suddaby appears to have agreed, granting gun rights activists a stay, or temporary halt, on the new law while their lawsuit against it proceeds.
The decision is the latest chapter in the battle over the state’s gun laws, which severely restrict the ability to carry a firearm outside the home.
The state law required a person seeking a public handgun licence to demonstrate “good moral character,” which included vetting their social media accounts, providing four character references, and completing 18 hours of firearms training.
It also established a long list of “sensitive locations” where firearms were not permitted to be carried.
The judge agreed that the requirements were unconstitutionally onerous and broad, and that Times Square and other sensitive areas did not warrant special protection.
Suddaby claimed that the new law still gives New York officials far too much power to deny gun permit applicants by requiring them to go to great lengths to prove their moral character, rather than assuming it in the absence of contradictory information.
New York Governor Kathy Hochul stated that an appeal against the stay was being considered.
However, the plaintiffs in the case, who are supported by Gun Owners of America, could take their case to the Supreme Court, where the majority justices have already stated that they generally support a constitutional right to bear arms.
