Anti-gun Democrats lash out after SCOTUS decision striking down "may issue" carry laws

AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster

Don’t expect blue state Democrats to simply roll over and accept the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen that declared “good cause” requirements for concealed carry licenses violates the Fourteenth and Second Amendment rights of American citizens. Though the Court didn’t give them a lot of wiggle room to try to block the average citizen from bearing arms in self-defense, Democrats are already signaling they’re going to try their hardest to do so.


In New York, Gov. Kathy Hochul is working on bringing lawmakers back to Albany for a special session specifically in response to today’s decision, though she’s been pretty tight-lipped about her plan to deprive the average New Yorker from their Second Amendment right.

On Thursday, she called the decision “shocking, absolutely shocking,” and said that she already had language for a new measure that she’d like to pass. Gov. Hochul said that she and legislative leaders were discussing dates for a special session.

… Like the governor, local officials have been preparing their offices. Mayor Eric Adams of New York City has said that he and others were looking to draft legislation on the federal, state and local levels in preparation.

The Manhattan district attorney, Alvin L. Bragg, said Thursday’s decision “severely undermines public safety.”

He had said that the office was planning for a potential storm of litigation, including lawyers filing motions to dismiss gun possession indictments and even convictions.

Mr. Bragg sent an email to his prosecutors saying that his team was planning to work with Ms. Hochul, Mr. Adams and other district attorneys on bills that would “protect New Yorkers and withstand legal challenge.”

He said Thursday that his office was “analyzing the ruling and crafting gun safety legislation that will take the strongest steps possible to mitigate the damage done today.”


The real damage being done here is coming from officials like Bragg, Adams, and Hochul, who continue to refuse to acknowledge the plain text of the Constitution and the opinion of the Supreme Court, which made it clear that attempts to declare broad swathes of publicly accessible places “sensitive spaces” won’t pass legal muster.

The SCOTUS decision doesn’t just impact New York, however. Every other “may issue” state has been put on notice as well, thanks to today’s ruling, and anti-gun politicians like Gavin Newsom know it.

California had more active shooter incidents than any other state in the country last year, so spare me the rationale that these “may issue” laws are about protecting the public. In actuality, they’re designed to ensure that we the people can’t protect ourselves from criminals who don’t give a damn about whether or not they’re lawfully carrying a firearm.

Gun control activists and anti-Second Amendment politicians are insistent, however, that the tens of millions of Americans living in “may issue” states are going to be worse off now that the Court has said they have a right to bear arms in self-defense.


Violent crime has been surging in many parts of the country, including “may issue” states like New York and California, so that argument doesn’t hold water, especially in light of the fact that concealed carry holders simply aren’t responsible for a lot of violent crime. The fact of the matter is that no state has ever reverted from a “shall issue” system back to a “may issue” regime, because there’s been no reason or demand to do so.

More than 20-million Americans currently possess a valid concealed carry license, and that number will undoubtably grow much higher now that population-rich states like New York and California are going to have to recognize the right of average citizens to bear arms in self-defense. And while the Court may have tried to preclude those states from declaring the vast majority of public spaces off-limits to those lawfully carrying a firearm, these states will likely try to increase the training requirements and perhaps even application fees as a way of artificially depressing the number of applicants. Their goal is to deprive as many people of their right to bear arms in self-defense, and they’re already hard at work looking for ways to get around the letter and the spirit of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bruen.



Join the conversation as a VIP Member