The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Where is Times Square?
New York City erects an expansive "sensitive" place in Midtown Manhattan.
Heller explained that public carry could be restricted in so-called "sensitive" places. And Bruen reaffirmed that limitation. Just in case anyone forgot, Justice Kavanaugh's concurrence block-quoted the worst passage from Justice Scalia's majority opinion. Bruen did not have occasion to define a "sensitive" place. But one specific locale popped up during oral argument.
Justice Barrett asked about banning guns in Times Square on New Year's Eve:
JUSTICE BARRETT: I mean, I guess it's about the level of generality, all these questions that Justice Kagan's asking you or that the Chief asked you, if -- if you concede, as I think the historical record requires you to, that states did outlaw guns in sensitive places, can't we just say Times Square on New Year's Eve is a sensitive place? Because now we've seen, you know, people are on top of each other, we've -- we've had experience with violence, so we're making a judgment, it's a sensitive place.
Paul Clement countered that restrictions on guns for New Year's Eve would be more akin to a time-place-manner restriction:
MR. CLEMENT: So here -- here's what I would suggest, that the right way to think about limiting guns in Times Square on New Year's Eve is not as a sensitive place but as a time, place, and manner restriction. And that might be a perfectly reasonable time, place, and manner restriction, but I don't think that's -- the sensitive places doctrine, as I understood it, from -- and, obviously, it's a brief reference in the Heller decision, so I -- I may not fully understand it -- but I understood that those were certain places where they were just no weapon zones all of the time because of the nature of that institution. And I think it's probably worth thinking about rallies and Times Square, that there may be restrictions, but they would be done --
Barbara Underwood, the New York Solicitor General, hinted that it would not be enough to ban guns only on New Year's Eve, because the area is so congested.
MS. UNDERWOOD:Well, essentially . . . it would be very hard in the first instance . . . to specify in advance all the places that ought properly to be understood as sensitive. So it sounds like a very convenient alternative, but, for example, we were talking about Times Square on New Year's Eve.
Times Square on -- when the theater district -- when -- when -- when commerce is in full swing, Times Square almost every night is shoulder-to-shoulder people. So then you -- you end up having a very big difficulty in specifying what all the places are that have the characteristics that should make them sensitive.
To no one's surprise, New York City has banned public carry in Times Square 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. And Times Square is not defined how I remember it--roughly a five-block sweep, bordered between Seventh Avenue and Broadway. Wikipedia confirms my understanding:
Times Square is a major commercial intersection, tourist destination, entertainment hub, and neighborhood in Midtown Manhattan, New York City. It is formed by the junction of Broadway, Seventh Avenue, and 42nd Street. Together with adjacent Duffy Square, Times Square is a bowtie-shaped space five blocks long between 42nd and 47th Streets.
Soon enough, this Wikipedia page will be scrubbed, so I took a screenshot. Truth must conform to progressive orthodoxies.
No, New York has selected the area from Ninth to Sixth Avenues, and from 53rd to 40th Streets--a total of three-dozen blocks.
The New York Times provides some more info:
In a statement, the police department said that Times Square was "not just a few streets with bright lights and video screens. It's a unique, dense, complex space, and the area designated in our rules and the proposed bill reflects that reality."
At a City Council hearing on Tuesday, Robert Barrows, the executive director of the police department's legal operations and projects, said that the area would be marked by signs that warn pedestrians that the area is a "gun free zone."
What about people who live in this area? They will be able to carry. And if you are in a vehicle, you can drive through the area, but your gun must be carried in a locked container and unloaded, and you cannot stop. (Sounds a lot like the rule at issue in New York State Rifle Pistol Association v. New York City). It will be very hard to get cross-town with those rules in effect.
We still do not know if the "campus" of New York University will be a "sensitive" place.
There will be litigation. Maybe the Supreme Court will still care about New York in a few years.
As best as I can tell, the City has mirrored the closings for--you guessed it!--New Year's Eve, though the gun boundary stops at 51st Street rather than 59th Street (Central Park South). For those who care, Trump Tower (on 57th Street) is outside of Times Square.
It's like T.G.I. McScratchy's Goodtime Foodrinkery, where every night is New Year's Eve!
I grew up in New York City, but never once went to Times Square for the ball drop. That was something only tourists did--much like going to the top of the Empire State Building (still never been!). However, I was in Times Square on December 31, 2013. The American Association of Law Schools held the annual meeting at the Midtown Hilton. But the Marriott Marquis offered a member rate on New Year's Eve! I couldn't believe it, so I booked it. The window in my room offered a very obstructed view of Broadway. And no, you couldn't wait in the lobby bar. All those seats sold for a premium. But around 11:45, I went outside and stood on the street. I couldn't quite see the ball drop, but I got the experience. Then I quickly rushed back into my warm hotel room. Fun fact: that evening, Circuit Justice Sotomayor issued an emergency stay on the shadow docket to protect the Little Sisters of the Poor from the contraceptive mandate. However, Sotomayor did not issue an emergency stay in the Utah same-sex marriage litigation. There was a flurry of activity that night! And at midnight, Sotomayor dropped the ball! I wrote all about the evening here, and in my second book Unraveled.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they 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 for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
And just a few hours ago, the coward Judge Suddaby of the N.D. of NY declined to enjoin the law, even though he acknowledged it was unconstitutional, because the plaintiff didn't have standing. Apparently, you don't have standing to challenge a criminal law that regulates an enumerated right until you actually break the law.
Of course, if a state, to slow the spread of monkey pox, prohibited gay men from barebacking their numerous partners, plenty of liberal judges would be happy to enjoin the law, even if there was no "credible fear of prosecution."
Standing is an essential requisite of subject matter jurisdiction for an Article III court. No case or controversy, no lawsuit.
If you really think that a holder of a carry permit has no standing to challenge a law that regulates what he can do with that permit simply because he hasn't been arrested yet, you're just an abject partisan.
My question is whether this person actually plans to, at some point, do something that will break this law. I notice this was filed in the northern district of NY. Is that where the plaintiff lives? Does he never go to NYC with his guns? Or maybe he goes through NYC all the time and it was filed in the northern district just because that's where NY's capitol is.
The law doesn't just impact NYC. It basically prohibits bringing guns everywhere.
False. It basically makes it impossible to carry a gun in Manhattan, but it is not likely to significantly impact most people upstate.
Read the decision and the statute it cites before you come on here and mouth off.
How do doctors get standing as women seeking abortion enjoining any abortion restriction, if no woman has been arrested? Seems only Democrats can get standing.
The judge basically said "It's not enough to 'want' to carry in violation of the rules, you have to 'intend' to do that."
Complete nonsense. Modern standing doctrine is, and has always been, a farce.
Modern standing doctrine has long been a conservative project.
Maybe at one point, but now it's used by liberals to enact their despicable ideals.
https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/2022.08.31_order_on_pi_motion_0.pdf
Here's the decision.
The opinion appears to be correct under current standing doctrine. If people want to mount a challenge to the law, they should find somebody who lives near the area who intends to carry a gun through it regularly, not somebody who luves in the northern part of the state and merely wants to do so sometime someday.
I want to acquire and fly a jet airplane someday, but that aspiration doesn’t give me standing to challenge jet airplane regulations.
You didn't read the decision. This had NOTHING to do with Times Square. The law applies to all private businesses. To say he doesn't have standing is absurd.
What is it with far right wing loons and gay sex?
And, no, it is not "cowardice" to do one's job. You cannot sue just because you don't like a law. You do not necessarily have to break the law, but you have to at least have a specific intent to do so.
You're a moron. If you have a carry permit and are told that you can't do your normal life while exercising your right to carry, then you are harmed.
(In the best whiny liberal voice you can get in your head)
"BUUUUTTTTT........GUUUUUUNNNNNS!!!!!!"
"There will be litigation."
That is a truism. Like there will be weather.
RE: "To no one's surprise, New York City has banned public carry in Times Square 24 hours a day, 365 days a year."
Does this mean it's legal to carry one there on February 29th of a leap-year?
Also for an hour during the daylight savings changeover?
Wiki does call the shape "bowtie." To me, it's an "L-shape." When I think of a bowtie, I think of something wide on both ends, and a bit less wide in the middle.
You New Yorkers have some weird-ass bowties, I guess.
I don't see any map showing the current/old Times Square boundaries, only the proposed L-shaped boundaries. Are you confusing that map?
You misread it. According to the WP piece we're discussing, Times Square proper is the triangle bounded by 42nd St, 7th Ave, and Broadway. Duffy Square is the triangle bounded by 47th St, 7th Ave, and Broadway. The combined area, which is what people usually mean by "Times Square", being composed of two triangles touching at their points, is shaped like a bow tie.
This is reminiscent of "massive resistance", the Southern Democratic response to Brown v. Board of Education (1954) and related cases that followed. Rather than comply with court rulings, Democrat lawmakers would incessantly pass laws and policies to circumvent them. Eventually the courts were forced to say, "Enough of this shit! We're taking over your schools." The courts today will likely be forced to take similar action if they want this blatant disregard for the rule of law to stop.
Gun laws should absolutely need preclearance.
Will this apply to everyone? Or more likely, special people with personal security guards will be exempt.
Retired police are exempt. Security guards are exempt as well, although I read the statute as covering guards that guard a particular business, like a bank, not roaming security guards. Who knows though?
"What about people who live in this area?"
Anyone who voluntarily chooses to live in Times Square shall be denied the ability to carry a firearm on account of their being a mental defective.
If states pass abortion laws, somehow courts manage to be there to issue injunctions before they take effect. Killing babies is a favored right. Gun rights are not.
It is not the court's fault that gun rights people were too incompetent to find an appropriate plaintiff here.
Give me a break. Judges twist themselves to rule the way they want when it's killing babies or gay sodomy.
" Just in case anyone forgot, Justice Kavanaugh's concurrence block-quoted the worst passage from Justice Scalia's majority opinion." Yes, we can't have any limitations on carrying machine guns or bazookas. Or even perhaps "dirty bombs?" In today's fetid legal atmosphere even Justice Scalia is a weak-kneed liberal. The blood of thousands of Americans each year is on the hands of Professor Blackman and the rest of the 2nd amendment absolutist gang here at the VC, and that goes for those of you commenters in that camp too. May sanity prevail - some day!
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?