In response to the Bruen decision, the state of New York enacted new draconian regulations that, frankly, make it virtually impossible to carry a firearm lawfully in the state. Sure, you can carry it when you walk down the street in most places, but not even that is guaranteed to be safe.

So the state’s response to Bruen has sparked a response in turn by gun rights advocates. They’ve filed lawsuits seeking to get injunctions on enforcement of these new rules.

That’s to be expected.

What isn’t expected, though, is when a defendant in one of these lawsuits agrees with the injunction.

[Alan] Gottlieb, who is SAF founder and executive vice president, said the brief filed by Niagara County, N.Y. District Attorney Brian D. Seaman reinforces plaintiffs’ assertion that the gun control law, which prohibits concealed carry in broadly-defined “sensitive places,” including places of worship, is unconstitutional.

Seaman’s brief states he supports the application for a preliminary injunction “for the purpose of furthering a judicial determination as to the constitutionality of New York Penal Law,” adding;

“Therefore, the Court should affirm the Decision and Order of the district court granting the Plaintiffs-Appellees’ application for a preliminary injunction.”

Wait…what?

Yep. It seems that Niagara County’s DA actually felt the injunction should be issued.

No, I don’t have a reason for it, but he did.

On one hand, it’s hard to believe that Seaman would make such a statement if he actually believed New York’s law was constitutional. Why not stand firm on his belief that it was a good and proper law?

On the other, he may simply believe that it’s more responsible to maintain the status quo as it is until constitutionality is ruled upon by the courts.

Either way, it doesn’t sound like Seaman is of the opinion that the case in favor of New York’s restrictions is all that strong. I can’t imagine someone being at least somewhat supportive of the law and believing it’s constitutional agreeing with plaintiffs on an injunction.

So what does this mean?

Well, I’m not an attorney, but I’m probably a tad bit better versed than your average bear on such matters just by virtue of seeing them play out so often. My guess is that yes, New York’s post-Bruen concealed carry law is in serious danger, and not even necessarily by the Supreme Court.

Lower courts in that neck of the woods tend to be anti-gun, but the reality is that Bruen laid groundwork that even the most anti-gun judge is going to have difficulty navigating around. With that in mind, coupled with what we have here, it seems pretty clear that the law in question was pretty much dead on arrival.

Unfortunately, New York lawmakers will just go back to the drawing board and concoct the most restrictive regime imaginable under whatever the judge rules permissible.

Meanwhile, law-abiding gun owners in the state are being jerked around by a malicious governor and legislature that’s bound and determined to infringe all over their Second Amendment rights.