New York Legislators Seem To Think Posting 'Gun-Free Zone' Signs in Times Square Will Minimize Crime
Approximately 36 blocks around Times Square will now be deemed a "gun-free zone." What purpose is served by this?

As of yesterday, "gun-free zone" signs now adorn roughly 36 blocks of Midtown Manhattan, from 40th St. to 53rd St., between 6th and 9th Avenues, in what has rather expansively been deemed Times Square.
Though many New Yorkers have perhaps fantasized about shooting the vendors who hawk Lion King tickets, or taking aim at tourists in cargo shorts who seem too enthusiastic about the M&M store, Times Square was not up until this point a place rife with crime stemming from lawful gun owners. As such, this move should probably not be viewed as New York politicians using a data-based approach to solve an actual problem, but rather as a reaction to the Supreme Court's recent decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which in June overturned a New York law requiring that those seeking concealed carry handgun licenses demonstrate to authorities that they have "proper cause" to do so.
The decision in Bruen, while largely affirming Second Amendment rights, does allow for public carry to be limited in places deemed "sensitive," reminds South Texas College of Law Houston professor Josh Blackman over at The Volokh Conspiracy (which is hosted by Reason). As even Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), "the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited….nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms." But it's unclear, at present, how narrow a "sensitive place" designation would have to be to hold up in court. What is clear is that New York politicians have hurried to signal, via signs installed yesterday, that vast swaths of Manhattan remain hostile to gun owners, even those attempting to follow every law currently on the books.
New York state passed a law in the immediate wake of the Bruen decision that designated certain spaces—subways, parks, playgrounds, public libraries, government buildings, churches, temples, and the like—where people would not be allowed to carry guns. Since much of that law goes into effect this week, the New York City Police Department (NYPD) and city council have rushed to publicize the areas in which gun owners are barred from carrying. But there are still many carveouts, notes The New York Times:
The police will allow residents licensed to carry guns to do so, if they are headed from their homes to an area outside the boundaries, or vice versa. They will also allow those who are permitted to carry handguns on business premises—such as security guards—to do so. And people with licenses will be allowed to have guns while passing through Times Square in vehicles, provided they do not stop and that the weapons are unloaded and carried in locked containers.
Still, declaring 36 blocks of Manhattan off-limits for those who wish to carry presents all kinds of hurdles for lawful gun owners. It also arguably goes against what the justices writing for the majority in Bruen already said on the matter: "Put simply," wrote Justice Clarence Thomas, "there is no historical basis for New York to effectively declare the island of Manhattan a 'sensitive place' simply because it is crowded and protected generally by the New York City Police Department." Though 36 blocks is a far cry from the whole island of Manhattan, it'll be interesting to see if such a broad designation holds up in court, especially as "Times Square" has traditionally been defined much more narrowly, as roughly a five-block cluster between 42nd and 47th St.
"New York has an incentive to define the concept as broadly as possible," Blackman tells Reason. "Entire parts of Manhattan island will be no-carry zones. And I think reasonable people, in good faith, will make mistakes when carrying. One block will be okay, one block will not be okay."
Thus, Blackman says, these rules will be "vulnerable to challenges," though he's "not optimistic that the lower courts will halt these rules." Though such laws may eventually land before the Supreme Court, it would likely take years for this to happen; in the meantime, gun-carrying New Yorkers will be forced to acquiesce.
Legality aside, "gun-free zone" signs look an awful lot like pointless signaling on the part of New York state legislators and their city council lackeys who have hurried to implement these policies. It's worth noting that "gun-free zones" are rarely truly free of guns; they just strip private law-abiding citizens of their rights, instead extending gun rights solely to cops and other agents of the state, as well as the private security guards that rich people hire to protect themselves. (How many Hollywood actors, for example, advocate for strict gun control in the wake of mass shootings yet would balk at the demand that they fire their own private security?)
It is true that New York City, like basically all other large American cities, has a gun violence problem, despite its highly restrictive policies that infringe on the rights of lawful gun owners; the homicide rate rose by roughly 47 percent in 2020, rising an additional 4 percent in 2021, reports Bloomberg. Though the homicide rate has been a little better so far in 2022, other categories of crime like robberies and burglaries are up. An April subway shooting in Brooklyn's Sunset Park left 29 people injured, 10 by gunfire. And, high-profile shootings aside, each summer weekend brings Monday morning news reports of shooting deaths, typically in far-flung, poorer parts of Brooklyn, Queens, and the Bronx. It would be great if the authorities would crack down on prosecuting those crimes, and improving clearance rates, versus the "crime" of an otherwise-lawful gun owner who has accidentally carried her holstered firearm without incident through the wrong block of Midtown.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Well, the purpose is to show that the democrats still have nothing but contempt for the constitution.
I suspect one of the reasons is so they can continue stop and frisk.
If concealment is legal then you can't assume the bulge in the pocket is an illegal firearm so you create a condition where it can't be legal.
Feel 'em up.
Is that a 9 mm Makarov in your pocket, or are you just happy to see me?
The authorities in New York City are in open rebellion against the Supreme Court.
It is plain that the only purpose of this new law is to disarm the law abiding citizens.
Now what happens?
Someone will have to get arrested for it before anyone has standing to challenge it.
It will either go all the way to the SC where we know it will get struck down, or they'll drop the charges before that because they don't want new precedent getting set.
NY state had another gun law that they dropped when challenged.
The Supreme Court saw through that tactic and took up the case anyway, ruling against NYS.
Pretty much. If 36 blocks of NYC can be declared a 'gun free' zone there's little reason to think they couldn't just make the entire city a gun free zone, then the state. I mean, why not? There doesn't appear to be any justification for this outside of 'FYTW' and that could easily apply to any size space.
Basically this does appear to be NYC telling the supreme court to fuck right off, they'll do what they want.
This will remain in effect until they start arresting a disproportionate number of BIPOC individuals with guns in their sacred "gun-free zones." Then they will quietly ease back on enforcing this particular offense, unless the person of interest is white.
Do we really think DA Bragg will "throw the book" at fangbanfers that get caught carrying in a gun-free stone?
Sorry, that' "gangbangers" not "fangbanfers", LOL
Actually, I like fangbanfers better.
It sounds funny, and it's got kind of an Idiocracy "Puddfucker's" vibe to it.
Cries out for injunctive relief during the lawsuit(s) to come. This is ten times more unconstitutional than the law just overturned.
In 2003, Minnesota passed the Citizens' Personal Protection Act (https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=624.714&year=2016). It took effect in May.
Hennepin County (where Minneapolis is located) responded by posting no-gun signs at all the entrances to its downtown government center - and took no other actions.
In September, Susan Berkovitz entered the Hennepin County Government Center, armed with a 1890’s S&W .38 revolver, and shot and killed her cousin, Shelley Joseph-Kordell, and wounded her cousin’s attorney, Richard Hendrickson.
Berkovitz had been involved in some sort of long-running dispute with her cousin over her mother’s estate, and had threatened her on multiple occasions.
It is believed that she filed suit in Hennepin County - despite her and her cousin being residents of Ramsey County (St. Paul), and the property in dispute being in Ramsey County - specifically because she knew the Ramsey County courts had metal detectors installed, Hennepin County did not.
The cousin suspected that Berkovitz intended her harm, and brought her concerns to the judge, who appointed her an unarmed security guard for protection.
Which worked out about as well as could be expected.
>>>Records say Kordell headed for the ladies' room while Hendrickson waited. The unarmed security officer stood outside the bathroom. Berkovitz apparently then walked up to Hendrickson in the lobby, and shot him in the neck at close range. A sheriff's deputy radioed for help. Hennepin County Sheriff Pat McGowan says Berkovitz then pursued Kordell in the ladies' bathroom.
>>>"And at that point, there were several shots fired in the bathroom. And when the suspect walked out, the sheriff's deputy -- the first on the scene -- had already put a call for assistance. Other officers responded quickly and the suspect was taken into custody," says McGowan.
Shooting suspect charged with murder (http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/features/2003/10/01_stawickie_shootingcharges/)
Declaring an area to be gun free, without taking any active measures to ensure it is gun free, significantly decreases the safety of all concerned, except for the shooter.
Declaring an area to be gun free, without taking any active measures to ensure it is gun free, significantly decreases the safety of all concerned, except for the shooter.
Common sense died a long time ago. You must have missed the obituary.
Washington D.C. still has much stricter firearms laws than nearby Northern Virginia, where they're pretty liberal. D.C. also has 10 times the firearms homicides per capita of NOVA.
Wonder why.
Glad gun free zone areas have never once led to mass shootings or casualties.
I honestly can't remember any mass shooting that wasn't in a gun free zone, but I'm not sure about Chicago - is Chicago a gun-free zone?
I can remember two. The first was the Texas University clock tower shooter in the 1960's when there were no gun-free zones. This was a former Marine sniper (with an undetected brain tumor), who picked an excellent sniper nest in the tower. The death toll would have been much higher if not for the citizens that ran and got rifles from their cars to return fire, keeping his head down. When the police arrived, they only had .38 special revolvers and had to borrow rifles from citizens. Finally, two cops went up the tower, carrying a rifle and shotgun, and the guy who loaned them these long guns went up with them.
The second was the Gabby Giffords shooting; the mall allowed guns (as one would expect in AZ), but neither she nor the liberals coming there to meet her were hypocritical enough to be armed. There was an armed citizen around the corner, who came running to the sound of gunshots (not something I would recommend normally), but by the time he arrived the shooter had emptied his guns and was being restrained by those unwounded among Gifford's audience.
So, there were dozens of mass shootings in victim disarmament zones versus two where potential victims could come ready to shoot back. One of those two shooters had never even heard of a gun-free zone, and the other one could count on his intended victims disarming themselves. I think that's an abundance of evidence that, like all violent criminals, mass shooters prefer unarmed victims.
Pulse Nightclub in Orlando was not a gun free zone. Patrons couldn’t be armed because of alcohol sales, but there was an armed guard present who wimped out.
"...is Chicago a gun-free zone?"
Not sure it's declared as such, but the gun regulations pretty much have that effect on those who obey laws.
Will the signs be made by pfizer?
Chris Rock covered this in 1999.
40 seconds into No Sex in the Champagne Room:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9yBPcn8IqU
Funny.
If a woman tells you she's 20 and she looks 16, she's 12.
If she tells you she's 26 and she looks 26, she's damn near 40.
Approximately 36 blocks around Times Square will now be deemed a "gun-free zone." What purpose is served by this?
To make it easier to create a 46-block gun-free zone around Times Square next year, duh.
But it's unclear, at present, how narrow a "sensitive place" designation would have to be to hold up in court. What is clear is that New York politicians have hurried to signal, via signs installed yesterday, that vast swaths of Manhattan remain hostile to gun owners, even those attempting to follow every law currently on the books.
The state of California is a "sensitive place". Constitutional.
Every business that had a gun premises permit in the area was sent a letter that they could no longer have a gun inside the business even though they have a permit.
The letter said they had to turn the gun into the police or have a licensed gun store come collect the gun because there was no legal way to transport the premises gun through the gun free zone to some other place where it might be legal.
Not true. If they say they received such notice, they’re mistaken.
If you live or work in the zone, you can take a legally owned weapon in or out. If you have a premises permit, you can keep it there. You don’t have to surrender your weapon to drive through. Most importantly, there are no enforcement or searches planned because the only people
This was all in the news and was widely reported.
Will there be enhanced penalties (similar to "hate crime" enhancements) for those found to be in violation of the new law?
Why didn't they post "Crime-Free Zone" signs?
We know why. The purpose of "Gun-Free Zone" signs are for indoctrination.
The mindless bleating sheep think a sign or slogan will fix everything.
I wonder why the Democrats are so addicted to gun control.
They aren't addicted to gun control they just know that victims need to be unarmed to become victims and be overpowered. It is power they are addicted to. They ruled Blacks for decades. and who is the majority of prisoners?
They don't think that. They want law abiding whites disarmed. Period.
Put up No Crime Zone signs too. And Scalia was wrong. Rights are not limited, only to each person they are and by that persons standards. Rights do not cancel laws, they cancel big govt control. Oh, and safe spaces for those who don't want to be victims ok NewYork?
And I would start advising police FBI etc to stop no-knock warrants. Hard to tell anymore the bad guys from the badder guys but kicking in a door scares people especially for those who live at the wrong address. And flash bang devices are a signal to occupants to take cover and fire at will.
Govt has finally hit the wall of stupid and is climbing it. And cops saying "They fired first" just don't cut it anymore.
It's time for the Supreme Court to stop playing whack-a-mole with unconstitutional laws and start making it costly for those who pass and enforce those laws. As a beginning, when they throw out this law, they should instruct the federal courts in NYC that every crime victim in this zone while it was in effect can sue the city and the politicians who passed this law for damages.
Only law abiding people care about the law. That's why we call people who break laws, criminals... because they only care about the law when it benefits themselves. Otherwise adhering to it is 'optional'.
An advertised "Gun Free Zone" is more likely to attract armed and/or violent criminals who are smart enough to recognize an area where the prospect of armed resistance is much less likely.
Makes me think of groundskeeper Willie solving the issue of an open well by posting a sign that says "Well".
They neither are capable of thinking, nor do they care about minimizing crime.
New York state passed a law in the immediate wake of the Bruen decision that designated certain spaces—subways, parks, playgrounds, public libraries, government buildings, churches, temples, and the like—where people would not be allowed to carry guns.
Funny how, in disregarding the 2A, they can't help but step on the 1A.
Yeah, a sign saying “we have no way to defend ourselves” should reduce crime.
THANKS https://oto.4u-review.com/7-figure-launch-system-oto-upsells-links/
The original coordinated plan in the media was to constantly report on “mass shootings”, but that ran out of gas when they were overusing it to include late night shootouts amongst paroled gang bangers:
https://amp.sacbee.com/news/local/crime/article260131840.html
So now the plan is to constantly report on “gun violence”. The language changed overnight. Quite disgusting.
NYC, Chicago, Philly, Milwaukee, and LA have a youth and young adult crime problem, with most offenders having a history of criminal and unhealthy activity.
It happens to include mostly blacks and hispanics, but also muslims and arabs. Most are economically low class, but also includes spoiled brats.
But the overwhelming common characteristic of all these crimes is the age of the offenders and a history of antisocial behavior, not the weapon or their skin color.
Calling it gun violence or a gang problem is an oversimplification.
It's worked in schools.
I am creating eighty North American nation greenbacks per-hr. to finish some web services from home. I actually have not ever thought adore it would even realisable but (dbt-15) my friend mate got $27k solely in four weeks simply doing this best assignment and conjointly she convinced Maine to avail. Look further details going this web-page.
.
---------->>> https://cashprofit99.netlify.app/