However, for some, that’s not such a good thing to their minds.

One of those, the NYPD commissioner, seems to believe it’ll make things worse.

A successful challenge to the New York’s strict gun law before the Supreme Court could “open the floodgates” and worsen a crisis of gun violence, New York City’s top cop warned.

In an interview aired Sunday with radio host John Catsimatidis on “The Cats Roundtable,” Commissioner Dermot Shea said “we are watching this closely.”

“Gun violence is certainly something that has hit us here in the last two years – not just New York, but across the country,” Shea said. “We would argue that the last thing we need is the infusion of additional guns into the streets of New York City.”

Shea hailed efforts before the COVID-19 pandemic and bail reform measures gave New York City a handle “on how to keep guns out of New York City for so long.”

“To have that upended is really a concern,” he said.

Now, if Shea were merely talking about guns in criminal hands, he might have a valid point. Armed criminals constitute a distinct and dangerous threat (as opposed to an undangerous threat) to the public.

But that’s not who the ruling is likely to impact. Those guys are getting guns left and right without any ruling from the Supreme Court.

Instead, what you’ll see are more armed citizens–people who have been shown to be more law-abiding than the police. They’ll be the ones carrying the guns, and those folks generally aren’t out there looking for trouble. They’re just wanting to mind their own business and will be carrying a firearm in case someone decides to harm them.

Armed citizens don’t constitute a threat. That’s never been a thing and it’s not likely to be a thing.

Unless, of course, you’re a criminal who wants to use force to take what you want. If that’s the case, then I stand corrected. Armed citizens are most definitely a threat to you…but that’s kind of the point.

Shea almost has to say stuff like this, though, because as the police commissioner of New York City, every politician he has to answer to is decidedly anti-Second Amendment. Even if he doesn’t believe stuff like this, he’d have to say it.

That’s not saying he doesn’t. I suspect he does.

What I’m curious about, though, is whether Shea will come out and admit that his worst fears didn’t come to pass a couple of years down the road when armed citizens aren’t blasting people left and right. I suspect he won’t, but neither will anyone else pushing fear and anti-Second Amendment rhetoric. Instead, they’ll claim anything else they did is what worked and not the fact that more armed citizens on the streets mean an increased risk for criminals, which may push some to find new lines of work.

But they’ll never admit it. It’s just not going to happen.

That’s alright, though. We’ll know and we’ll keep fighting for our Second Amendment rights so as to preserve the idea of armed citizens being able to defend themselves from the tyranny of the thug. We’ll keep fighting, and winning, because if we don’t, they’ll take away our rights completely.

Worse yet, though, would be people like Shea telling us how it’s for our own good.