New York State, and particularly New York City, consider themselves outside the Constitution and federal law, above both. They’re special, more evolved than the Deplorables of Flyover Country. This is particularly obvious where the Second Amendment is concerned. New York thinks itself above such trifles, and despite the Supreme Court’s Second Amendment decisions—Bruen (2022) is the most recent—continues to write blatantly unconstitutional laws disarming the law-abiding while doing nothing to disarm criminals.

Bruen struck down a New York law that disarmed all but celebrities, the very wealthy and the politically connected. The law required a “special need” for the issuance of a concealed carry permit. Only the aforementioned worthies were found to have special needs. From Bruen:

Graphic: Glock 43X, Author

We…now hold, consistent with Heller and McDonald, that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home.

The parties nevertheless dispute whether New York’s licensing regime respects the constitutional right to carry handguns publicly for self-defense. In 43 States, the government issues licenses to carry based on objective criteria. But in six States, including New York, the government further conditions issuance of a license to carry on a citizen’s showing of some additional special need. Because the State of New York issues public-carry licenses only when an applicant demonstrates a special need for self-defense, we conclude that the State’s licensing regime violates the Constitution.

Governor Kathy Hochul quickly called a special session of the legislature, which passed a law that was even more restrictive.

It prohibited concealed carry in “sensitive places,” which was pretty much all of New York State, and in businesses unless they posted signs specifically allowing concealed carry. There were also fees, processing delays, training requirements and reviews of social media accounts. Worst of all, applicants had to be of “good moral character,” one of many new requirements aimed at keeping New Yorkers disarmed. A federal judge quickly disposed of that obvious subterfuge:

“Simply stated, instead of moving toward becoming a shall-issue jurisdiction, New York State has further entrenched itself as a shall-not-issue jurisdiction,” wrote the judge. [emphasis added]

New York appealed to the Second Circuit U.S. Court of appeals, which upheld much of the law with a few exceptions:

The Court’s 261-page opinion invalidates requirement to provide social media to reviewing officials and bans on concealed carry in businesses open to the public and houses of worship, but lets some other provisions stand, such as the required showing of “good moral character” and the ban on concealed carry in “sensitive” public places.

That decision was appealed to the Supreme Court, which did not accept it as a separate case, but remanded it back to the Second Circuit to reconsider it in light of other, related decisions, specifically, the “good moral character” nonsense. It was clear the Supreme Court knew the Second Circuit was using any specious reason to keep New Yorkers disarmed and vulnerable.

In the current climate where lower courts are engaged in lawfare against Donald Trump and resistance to the Supreme Court, the Second Circuit essentially told the Supreme Court they don’t have to listen to the Supreme Court and their original ruling stood. Now it’s back to the Supreme Court, which is becoming more than a little annoyed at lower courts:  

Justice Neil Gorsuch issued a pointed warning criticizing lower courts for repeatedly defying Supreme Court decisions in cases involving the Trump administration.

Gorsuch, writing in an opinion joined by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, said the Court’s decision allowing the administration to move forward with cutting millions in National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants was the “third time in a matter of weeks” that the justices had to overturn a lower court on an issue it had already addressed.

“Lower court judges may sometimes disagree with this Court’s decisions, but they are never free to defy them,” Gorsuch wrote.

Now we see if the Supreme Court will back up its rhetoric with action, even as President Trump is considering doing for New York City what he has done for Washington DC: reestablishing the rule of law very much against the wishes of its Democrat rulers.

Become a subscriber and get our weekly, Friday newsletter with unique content from our editors. These essays alone are worth the cost of the subscription. 

Mike McDaniel is a USAF veteran, classically trained musician, Japanese and European fencer, life-long athlete, firearm instructor, retired police officer and high school and college English teacher. He is a published author and blogger. His home blog is Stately McDaniel Manor.