New York lost in the Bruen case and suddenly couldn't bar just about everyone from carrying guns. So, since they couldn't bar people from getting permits to carry, they just decided to make it as difficult for people to carry as they could.

That included making all private property a "sensitive place" unless the owner specifically allowed firearms.

And they lost on that front.

Now, the media there is trying to pretend they were told something quite different than what they were.

Commonsense gun restrictions just took another hit. Last Thursday,U.S. District Judge John L. Sinatra Jr. struck down part of New York state’s concealed carry regulations, thus making it possible for gun owners to carry a concealed firearm into a supermarket, hotel or other privately owned location open to the public.

It is a bitter blow, but not only to a city where 10 people were killed in a supermarket two years ago, but to all New York communities. Most people would like to go about their daily business without worrying that their fellow shoppers might be carrying deadly weapons.

Except that's not what the judge actually said.

What he said was, “The State maintains there is ‘extensive historical support spanning the colonial era to Reconstruction and beyond that forbade carrying guns onto others’ property without their permission. But the State fails, on this historical record, to demonstrate that the challenged restriction is ‘consist[ant] with a well-established and representative National tradition.”

In other words, what was unconstitutional was preemptively banning guns without direct and specific permission to carry them on that property.

That doesn't preclude having a sign up by the door or in a window that says not to bring guns on the premises. That means grocery stores that are worried about a mass shooter would be able to prohibit guns if they want. They just have to actually make that call for themselves rather than having the state just declare everywhere a gun-free zone.

Then again, Hochul wants everywhere to be a gun-free zone. She's pretty much said as much, after all.

However, let's address the idea that this law somehow is intended to prevent another supermarket shooting like what Buffalo saw. My question is how?

If the laws against killing people didn't dissuade the killer, why would anyone believe a law about carrying a gun inside the store would do anything?

"I guess I'll just have to shoot people in the parking lot because I don't want to take my gun into the store to kill people. I'd hate to break the law or anything during my murderous rampage."

Please.

But the judge did not say you couldn't have gun-free zones. Even the Bruen decision said guns can be banned in "sensitive places" such as courthouses. What they can't do is create a blanket gun-free zone for, say, the island of Manhattan.

Yet, in essence, the vampire rule the judge overturned does just that. You might be able to mill about on the street in most areas without an issue, but you can't go anywhere and do anything while carrying and remain lawful.

Let's not pretend it did anything else.