The Supreme Court is likely going to fundamentally change at least some of New York City’s gun control laws. For years, the Big Apple has made it pretty much impossible for anyone to get a concealed carry permit and SCOTUS is set to end that.

Unsurprisingly, that has some people more than a little concerned.

At the New York Post, the editorial board appears to be among those. Their editorial, titled, “Pray the Supreme Court doesn’t leave NY defenseless to control flood of weapons on streets,” makes that clear.

When the Supreme Court rules on New York’s gun laws, presumably within the next couple of months, pray it doesn’t leave the state defenseless to control a flood of weapons on the streets.

The court is set to rule on a challenge to the laws by two upstate New Yorkers, Robert Nash and Brandon Koch, who were denied unrestricted licenses to carry firearms after they failed to show “proper cause,” i.e., a special need for self-protection, as the law requires. They — and other gun-rights advocates — argue that such a requirement places an unconstitutionally high burden on legal gun-owners.

…

And make no mistake: New York, which is in the midst of an alarming surge in gun crimes, needs at least some restrictions on who gets to own and carry guns. Last year, 488 people were murdered in the city alone, many killed by a gun. That’s a whopping 65% spike over 2018, when just 295 were slain. Over the year, 1,857 people were hit by gunfire, and the number of shooting victims this year through April 24, 441, is already up 8.6% over the same period last year.

And with all that violence is despite all that gun control.

Maybe, just maybe, the SCOTUS decision won’t leave New York City defenseless. In fact, it’s very likely that, for the first time, New Yorkers actually won’t be defenseless.

See, the problem with gun control is that it only controls those who you don’t really need to control.

A law-abiding citizen who wants a firearm for sporting purposes, self-defense, or just because he or she does isn’t the kind of person anyone needs to worry about. They’re not likely to be engaged in criminal activity in any way. They’re not your problem.

Meanwhile, the people who are the problem are clearly getting guns in some way, shape, or form. It’s not through lawful sales, that’s for sure.

Then those same people–the people who actually are the problem–are carrying guns without a care in the world. They’re not being deterred by the laws in place.

The SCOTUS decision we all expect–mostly just a shall-issue permitting requirement–will really just allow those who aren’t an issue to finally carry a firearm in their own defense.

As we recently saw, violence can happen anywhere in the city. People cannot just trust that they’ll never be the victim of a violent crime. They have a right to be prepared for such an eventuality. They have a right to decide not to be defenseless.

Yet in claiming such a SCOTUS ruling will make the city defenseless, the Post is arguing to make every resident just that.