A Stroll Through The Times Square Gun Free Zone

I walked about a seven blocks before I saw a sign.

This evening, I took a stroll around Midtown Manhattan with a goal: locate a Times Square Gun Free Zone sign. I entered the Second Amendment safe space at 6th Avenue and 49th Street. But I saw no sign! Then I walked to Broadway and 49th Street. Still no sign! I walked down Broadway to 43rd Street. I saw no signs.

I then turned up 43rd to 6th avenue, and I found it. A sign!

 

 

 

 

The sign reads:

Times Square Gun Free Zone. Licensed gun carriers may not enter with a gun unless specifically authorized by law. Violation of this prohibition is a felony.

I suspect these signs are temporary. The laminated printouts were attached to the pole with zip ties.

 

As best as I can tell, the signs were posted along 6th Avenue from 42nd Street through 47th Street. Alas, I entered the Constitutional DMZ at 49th Street. No notice. But still a felony.

Comments

[Kazinski]

What kind of gun is that in the sign?

A 10mm pistol with an 8" barrel and a 5 round magazine?

Not my first choice but I could work with that?

[Dr-P]

Sign or no sign
- Thomas has already written that this invites judicial scrutiny

He explicitly noted big areas of NYC could not be gun free zones

During the oral argument Times Square was discussed. at best they may have some time and place argument on New Years Eve but not routinely

[IsaacDanielcm]

They know this. They don't care. They just figure they'll delay, hope on cowardly judges like Judge Suddaby to not rule quickly on the merits, and then, even if they get a negative ruling, they'll slightly change the law and start all over.

[AmosArch]

good thing criminals obey laws.

[Krayt]

Exactly my wonderment. I'm sure shootings will drop because all those law abiding citizens are just lousy with violence, because the crooks obviously won't obey it so that won't affect anything.

[checksix]

Well, the sign does target "licensed" carriers.

[Michael Ejercito]

There were no checkpoints?

[Kazinski]

He doesn't fit the profile for stop and frisk.

[ChrisC]

My thoughts exactly - the return of "stop and frisk". Ha, Ha.

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

Tthe government won't be able to fix this gun problem by micromanaging. When it comes to managing details, the government sucks. What the government should do is something it has done quite well in the past: delegate the problem to private individuals and groups - to the great, creative people of the USA. That's how we got the technology together to win the Cold War; how we got to the Moon; how we created computers-for-everyone, and then, the internet-for-everyone; even sequencing the human genome (the coding-part, the part that matters) was done first by a private company. The government is bad at micromanaging, but great at delegating. Now is the time to delegate, with all our skill and strength! In particular, delegate the responsibility to the folks who understand guns and gun-safety and gun-ownership best.

The folks who understand guns and gun-issues best are gun-makers and gun-sellers. Second-best are the gun-owners (some of them). This raises the question: how can the government motivate these folks to solve the mass-shooting gun-problem? There is a simple answer.

Make them an offer they can't refuse.

The government should implement the following policy: if you sell a gun, or if you or any company you work for or own stock in makes a gun, and that gun gets used in a crime, or kills someone by negligence, then you suffer the same penalty as the criminal, regardless of all other circumstances.

You say "hey, I can't read my customers' minds! How am I to know he's gonna use the gun in a crime?" The answer is: that's YOUR problem. You are the expert on guns. YOU figure out a way. Or, stop selling the damm guns. Or, get ready to go to prison alongside of the customer who got a gun from you and used it in a crime. That's your incentive to figure out a way that succeeds: if you succeed in preventing your customers from committing crimes with the guns they get from you, your reward for success is you get to avoid going to prison alongside of the criminal who got your gun and used it in the crime.

And, (word of advice) the first thing you need to do is stop thinking like a loser. "The problem is hard, how am I supposed to solve it?" That's how losers talk. Be a winner. Be an American. Figure out how to solve the problem yourself.

Same for gun-makers and gun owners. You don't need the government to tell you how to lock up your guns, or how to keep them out of the hands of criminals, or how to design guns smart enough that only a lawful, law-abiding owner can fire them, or whatever. You, American people, are smart and creative. The government should just give you the incentive - if you succeed, you get to stay out of prison - and let you the gun-owner, or you the gun-maker, or you the gun-seller, figure out how to solve the problem in all its messy details. The government should just judge by results, and punish failure ruthlessly. That's how the Brits beat Napoleon: the military delegated responsibility to the officers and judged by results. And the officers were not allowed to excuse failure by arguing that their particular assignment was difficult, and they were not allowed to blame their subordinates or associates. They took responsibility, because they had to. There was no alternative for them.

(The same policy should apply to ammo. If you're gonna sell ammo, or manufacture it for use in USA, you have to be responsible for how it's used. If you don't know how to meet this responsibility, you have to figure out a way, or find something else to make and sell.)

And if some of the gun-makers and gun-sellers (or ditto ammo) decide it's too much to handle, and bail out of the industry, GOOD. And if the policy is unfair and punishes some well-meaning innocents, TOO BAD. The parents of the dead children and the families of the bystanders hit by stray bullets were well-meaning and innocent too. If you don't like it, take up another hobby. Instead of shooting, learn to play the clarinet. Or take up shuffleboard, or swimming. You'll have to anyway, in the end, when you get older and your reflexes slow down and your aim worsens.

[PeteRR]

Nah, we're good.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Boy, are you going to hate the way the modern American culture war turns out . . . especially for right-wing gun absolutists.

[Mr. Bumble]

Should your plan be extended to anyone who makes a product that is used to kill someone?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Think of how many government actions have killed people. It would never apply to our masters.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Your betters, not your masters.

[Mr. Bumble]

Neither.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Think and speak as you wish. The victors in the American culture war do not want or need your approval, consent, or belief . . . but we will continue to have your compliance.

Losing at the marketplace of ideas has -- and should have -- consequences.

[Mr. Bumble]

Spoken like a true fascist. A full blooded fascist and not a semi-fascist.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Nothing fascist about it. You will, as part of our society, continue to comply with the preferences of better Americans. If you want to change that situation, get better ideas -- in particular, ditch the bigotry, the backwardness, and the superstition. Otherwise, the liberal-libertarian mainstream will continue to shape our national progress against the wishes and efforts of conservative, and that means you will comply with rules established by that mainstream.

You get to whimper and whine, mutter and sputter, rail and flail about it as much as you like, of course. Especially at this white, male, right-wing blog. But you will comply.

[David Nieporent]

DNFTT.

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

I'd take it on a case-by-case basis. If we start getting a problem with people being killed by bad-guys using fedora hats as weapons, then, sure, we'd consider applying the same principle to the hatters.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

How about something like...oh, I don't know...motor vehicles? Or medical mistakes?

[Life of Brian]

The government won't be able to fix this gun problem by micromanaging. When it comes to managing details, the government sucks.

Having read your posts around here for a good while, I knew this couldn't possibly be serious. But you got me to read all the way through anyway, just to see the punchline. Well done.

[MatthewSlyfield]

"The government should implement the following policy: if you sell a gun, or if you or any company you work for or own stock in makes a gun, and that gun gets used in a crime, or kills someone by negligence, then you suffer the same penalty as the criminal, regardless of all other circumstances."

People die in alcohol related auto accidents. Try to apply that policy to the auto industry, see how far you get.

[Toranth]

A very modest proposal there. But don't forget about the drug companies - we're in the middle of a drug overdose crisis! The moral equivalent of war! If you sell or prescribe medicines, or own stock in a company that does, you shall suffer the same penalty as the criminal.

COVID? What's that? I wonder why flu season is so bad this year...

[Squirrelloid]

You forgot the alcohol companies, too! Prohibition 2.0, here we come!

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

"The great, creative people" are the same people who work for governments. You should meet a few of them, maybe it would dispel your ideologically driven ignorance of how governments work.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You prefer the lesser dullards?

That would explain Republican registration.

[Krayt]

When benighted government lowers burdens on business so technological progress can move even faster, saving vastly more lives than gun shootings, let me know.

[Krayt]

Meanwhile, just say no to another lawyer drumbeat for lawsuits.

[Michael Ejercito]

The government should implement the following policy: if you sell a gun, or if you or any company you work for or own stock in makes a gun, and that gun gets used in a crime, or kills someone by negligence, then you suffer the same penalty as the criminal, regardless of all other circumstances.

So who will sell guns to the Chicago PD, the New Orleans PD, the LAPD, the Minneapolis PD, etc.?

Drug cartels from south of the border?

[Bob from Ohio]

Its ok to name yourself after a Toad, don't lick them though, you might write screeds like this!

[Brett Bellmore]

"The government should implement the following policy: if you sell a gun, or if you or any company you work for or own stock in makes a gun, and that gun gets used in a crime, or kills someone by negligence, then you suffer the same penalty as the criminal, regardless of all other circumstances."

My first reaction was "Eat shit and die".

Come to think of it, that pretty much sums up all my subsequent reactions, too.

[Brett Bellmore]

It seems bizarre to me that, even as the anti-gun movement finds itself at the lowest point in decades, losing almost uniformly in the courts, concealed carry reform having prevailed democraticly in the great majority of states, gun ownership increasingly common, totally off the wall proposals, that would have been non-starters even at the movement's peak, have become increasingly common.

The disconnect between the movement's actual strength and the scope of its ambitions is becoming enormous. Perhaps because the sane people are gradually jumping ship, leaving the anti-gun movement to be run by nutcases?

[Michael Ejercito]

Much of the rank-and-file jumped ship in 2020, when they heard the same side pushing for stricter gun control laws accusing law enforcement per se of being systemically violent racists who habitually gun down unarmed Black men.

Even though they sincerely feel that gun control laws would all but eliminate criminal homicide if enforced in an even handed manner, the same side pushing for stricter gun control laws are telling them it would be enforced otherwise.

[Brett Bellmore]

Still, I think part of what is going on is that the left are starting to think that they WILL be totally prevailing soon, and won't have to CARE about the courts or public opinion much longer.

I think 2016 caused a serious change in the left's way of thinking. They're not taking a gradual approach anymore. I think they see their station approaching, and are starting to pull the E-stop on Erdogan's trolley.

[David Nieporent]

Still, I think part of what is going on is that the left are starting to think that they WILL be totally prevailing soon, and won't have to CARE about the courts or public opinion much longer.

You're. A. Loon.

[BadLib]

That sounds like a great, yet incomplete, plan.

Obviously the policy should apply to all objects that are used to kill people accidentally or intentionally (including kitchen knives, baseball bats, rocks [not sure how to enforce that one], rope [remember Jesse Smollett - that was a close one!], cars, boats, toothbrushes [used to fashion shanks to kill other prisoners], electrical generators, and axes).

More importantly it should also apply in the negative sense to politicians and those who vote for them if the politician votes for or implements polices that inhibit people from lawfully defending themselves (for example by interfering with private gun ownership) or which result in criminals re-offending. So, for example, if you voted for Gascón, you are personally liable (along with him) for every crime committed by those Gascón declined to prosecute or let out on bail in the interests of "social justice".

[Rossami]

And of course, if that level of absolute liability makes sense for guns, surely it should be equally appropriate to knifemakers and sellers, car makers, pharmaceutical makers, refrigerator makers and, well, everything else. And if those manufacturers decide it's too much too handle and bail out of the industry, GOOD - because you're completely prepared to become a subsistence farmer, right? And you're completely okay that you will condemn most of the 7 billion population to death from war and famine, right?

[gVOR08]

Too complicated. Do it like cars, except you have to show proof of insurance to buy a gun or ammunition. Require gun owners to buy liability insurance Back of the envelope, round numbers, a life is usually valued at something like $10 million. About 40,000 people are killed by guns every year. Best I can find there are about 80 million gun owners in the country. That works out to premiums of about $5,000 / year for each gun owner. I'm sure you'll have objections, all addressable. Suicide? The policy owes the survivors. Illegal guns? The supply will start to dry up if serial numbers are traced back to the original policy. Big number? One way or another we're paying it now. Your rights? Guns aren't free now.

[Brett Bellmore]

Nah, that's stupid. If somebody steals your car, and runs somebody over? You don't get treated like a killer, you get treated as the victim of a theft. Likewise for any other personal property that can be misused.

To treat guns, ownership of which is actually a constitutional right, differently than other property in a worse manner? Total and absolute non-starter. It's just an effort to unconstitutionally burden the right, and transparently so.

We hold the person who does the wrong responsible for the wrong. Period. End of story.

Might as well openly say you intend to violate the right, because nobody is going to fall for the claim you have anything else in mind, with a stupid scheme like that.

[Michael Ejercito]

What if they refuse to get insurance?

Now what

[IsaacDanielcm]

You're a fucking moron.

[Harvey Mosley]

So Ford, GM, Anheuser-Busch, etc., should all be liable for drunk drivers? Someone is killed with a baseball bat the CEO of Louisville Slugger goes to prison? A politician passes a law that prevents someone from buying a gun for self defense and they get killed then the politician does 20 to life for murder? I'm good with that as long as it applies to everything across the board. Otherwise GTFO.

[ThePublius]

"The government should implement the following policy: if you sell a gun, or if you or any company you work for or own stock in makes a gun, and that gun gets used in a crime, or kills someone by negligence, then you suffer the same penalty as the criminal, regardless of all other circumstances."

That is the stupidest thing I have read in probably the last year.

What about all of the other products that can result in deaths? Cars. Medicine. Knives. And so on.

Idiot.

[Carl_N_Brown]

Are you serious or is this a parody of the typical prohibitionist mentality?

Speaking of Poe's Law.

"`He that is born to be a man,' says Wieland in his Peregrinus Proteus, `neither should nor can be anything nobler, greater, or better than a man.' The fact is, that in efforts to soar above our nature, we invariably fall below it. Your reformist demigods are merely devils turned inside out."
--Edgar Allan Poe in "Marginalia"

[damikesc]

"The government should implement the following policy: if you sell a gun, or if you or any company you work for or own stock in makes a gun, and that gun gets used in a crime, or kills someone by negligence, then you suffer the same penalty as the criminal, regardless of all other circumstances."

Wow, that might be the worst idea in recorded history. Seriously, just irredeemably terrible.

[Jimmy the Dane]

What about unlicensed carriers? Are they not strictly prohibited either or do they just get a slap on the wrist, let out of jail without bail, eventually having the local woke DA drop all charges? Says a lot about our supposed system of "laws" when someone who goes through an onerous legal process to exercise a constitutional right actual has less of a right then someone who is flaunting the law. But, that is where we are at in 2022.

[balthisar]

*pole

[Life of Brian]

It's never too early in the morning to start Living the Dream!

[bernard11]

And the point of this post is?

[Mr. Bumble]

That the NY law is a fraud.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

The point is that any talk of federalism goes out the window when state or local governments do things conservatives disagree with.

[Mr. Bumble]

You mean like ignoring the Constitution?

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

I mean ignoring conservatives bad faith interpretations of the constitution.

[Mr. Bumble]

When will you be applying for your permit to post comments?

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

I know a guy at the permit office. I can get you one too if you want.

[Mr. Bumble]

Glad you still have a sense of humor. As for a gun permit in NYC you actually did have to "know some body".

[Michael Ejercito]

Gun control is unconstitutional.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Good example!

[IsaacDanielcm]

The bad faith interpretation of the Constitution is one that says "the right of the people" applies to government militias.

[Harvey Mosley]

I agree Heller is a bad faith interpretation. But hoplophobic gun grabbers should be thankful for it. A true interpretation would be for Miller to be enforced the way it was actually decided. Banning single shot rifles and shotguns would be okay. Banning M4s and SAWS would not pass muster.

[Bored Lawyer]

YEs, because the acts of state and local governments must never be subject to review and scrutiny under "federalism."

Clown.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

You have no true belief in federalism, or any other principles of constitutional interpretation, unless they can be used as tools to reach your preferred result.

Hypocrite.

[Bored Lawyer]

Which you say with precisely zero backup. You're like the proverbial lawyer who neither facts nor law, so bangs the table loudly.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

I've been reading your commenting here for years now. It's all ideologically driven, with no consistent support for any particular method of constitutional interpretation. Which would be fine, if you didn't keep pretending otherwise.

[Armchair Lawyer]

That NY designed a law to effectively ban guns in a large area, right after similar laws were struck down.

It's deceptive and disingenous.

[bernard11]

No. That's not what the OP is about at all.

It's about the lack of signs in Times Square.

[Mr. Bumble]

Dohtard, and just why the need for signs?

[Armchair Lawyer]

"No. That's not what the OP is about at all.
It's about the lack of signs in Times Square"

Umm...in regards to a law that effectively banned guns in a large area of NYC.

One issue with laws like this is when it's not clear where they are. Take a look at Google street view at 53rd and Broadway. (For the record, Times Square is actually at 45th and Broadway). Is it clear that 53rd and Broadway is "part of Times Square". Or "52nd and Broadway"? How is 52nd and Broadway different in any easily distinguishable fashion from 54th and Broadway?

[JJJSSS]

It's not immediately obvious on a map, but the northernmost Broadway theaters (excluding Studio 54 which is really its own animal) are the Neil Simon and the August Wilson on 52nd and the Broadway Theatre which is on Broadway between 53rd and 54th. Similarly the southernmost theater is the Nederlander on 41st, with the zone ending on 40th. It's also based on subway entrances/exits: 7th Avenue Station on the EBD is on 53rd st and is the northernmost station that you'd access the theater district from, while the Times Square station extends down to and has entrances/exits down to 40th.

That is, the reasoning behind it is pretty easy to tell if you know the area. But there's no sudden geographical change that makes it obvious.

[Dr-P]

Subways were discussed as gun free zones

Alito directly asked the State’s attorney how many weapons were there already. She said none until he asked her repeatedly and she finally understood criminals had weapons regardless of laws

[Armchair Lawyer]

So, let's take your logic at face value, and ignore details like the Broadway Theatre technically being outside of the "Times Square gun free" zone. What you're really talking about is called the Theatre District. (The borders don't perfectly align, but they align with your logic).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theater_District,_Manhattan

The issue with that is suddenly an entire district of Manhattan is a "gun free zone"? That's...not narrow.

[Kazinski]

Seems topical to me. Onsite reporting to NY's* response to Bruen.

* as much as I complain about spellchecker, it tried to turn NY's to 'nuts', I can't say that's wrong.

[John F. Carr]

If you really love me, you will put a simulated bullet hole through the gun free zone sign.

[Mr. Bumble]

In NYC that is also probably a crime.

[John F. Carr]

Probably just misdemeanor vandalism. He can still keep his law license.

[DonP]

I'm sure the new virtue signalling "Gun Grabber" signs will be every bit as effective as the ones in Chicago are.

Gang Bangers, muggers, rapists, car jackers and other miscreants will take one look, shake in frustrated fury and immediately turn from a life of crime to doing good deeds and vote Democrat for life, in gratitude for their new found "safety".

Oh wait, all the criminals in Chicago already vote Democrat, even the ones holding office. But the "Safety" part will hold true. (That whole "Jussie Smollet/MAGA Country" thing was a mere aberration) So feel free to take a nice evening stroll through the Englewood or Austin neighborhoods. Two other equally safe "Gun Free Zones".

The real question should be; Whose Brother in Law got the 7 $$$ figure printing contract for the crappy little signs and the zip tie mark up?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Get an education, clinger. Start with standard English.

[Mr. Bumble]

Yeah, like "shall not be infringed".

[IsaacDanielcm]

The point of gun laws is not to harshly punish black or Hispanic Democrat Party criminals. It's to punish white conservatives.

[DonP]

Gotta love the "Mute" function.

Only 3 crap stirrers muted, but what a refreshing difference!.

Thanks EV.

[Armchair Lawyer]

It's interesting.

As I read this law, security guards are allowed to have weapons while on duty at a specified location. But if they aren't on duty, they can't have their weapons at the specified restricted location.

"(e) security guards as defined by and registered under article seven-A
of the general business law, who have been granted a special armed
registration card, while at the location of their employment and during
their work hours as such a security guard;"

https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/265.01-E

Since, they block off a broad swath of land as "Times Square" the security guard does not appear to be able to actually get to their place of employment with their firearm legally if it's inside of "Times Square". Because then they wouldn't be "on duty"...they'd be travelling to their site, through the restricted area.

If one wanted to challenge this law, they could potentially perform a citizen's arrest on a security guard who leaves his duty site with a firearm, within Times Square. As soon as they left whatever store they were guarding, they would be in violation of this law.

Thoughts?

[Longtobefree]

My thought:
What part of "NYC" did you miss?

[John F. Carr]

The standard rule for a citizen's arrest, without addressing New York in particular, makes the citizen strictly liable for mistakes. If you arrest somebody who turns out to be innocent you can be sued.

[Armchair Lawyer]

If you see a security guard carrying a firearm away from their duty site....wouldn't it be self apparent from the law?

[John F. Carr]

What if he's a cop moonlighting as a guard? A retired cop who gets a gun permit thanks to Congress? Does that allow him to carry in Times Square? I don't know the answer and you'd better make sure you do before trying to arrest somebody for having a gun.

[BadLib]

The firearms could be kept at the place of business and not stray beyond the boundaries of that business.

I'm not sure how the firearms would get there in the first place. Perhaps police officers could be paid to carry them in initially - yielding another lucrative private gig for police offices.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Oh, but this gets more fun.

They could be...if they were held by a registered security guard.

But if the security guard leaves, and there is not immediately another on-duty security guard there to pick up the firearm, does it then violate the gun-free zone law?

[bernard11]

Meanwhile,

JFTR,

Murder and non-negligent homicide rate per 100,000 population, 2019

Houston 11.50
New York City 3.39

Maybe Josh could focus his efforts to improve law enforcement closer to home.

[Dan Schiavetta]

+

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Houston . . . tops for murders, at the bottom for law schools!

Cheaters at baseball, too.

[Mr. Bumble]

A Democrat run enclave, like Chicago, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, Portland, New Orleans, Baltimore and on and on and on......

[Kazinski]

But Josh's main focus is Constitutional law, not criminal law, so of course he's more concerned professionally with civil rights than crime prevention.

If there were a guest poster who focuses on voter rights and gerrymandering, are you going to ask them why they aren't posting on crime prevention in Baltimore?

[Mr. Bumble]

Don't know where you got your figures, but this list seems to be at odds with your claim.

https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/murder-map-deadliest-u-s-cities/

[bernard11]

I got from Wikpedia - see the link.

It's based on FBI reports.

I'm not sure what the relevance of your link is, since neither NYC nor Houston is on it.

Note that your list shows the murder rate, while mine shows murders and non-negligent homicides, so the rates aren't going to be the same. Your list's number will be lower than mine.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think you'd have to actually look at the individual murders for some commonality. Huston's murder rate is running 2-3 times higher than Texas as a whole, and going up and down with huge swings.

[Brett Bellmore]

Occurs to me that almost all murders are committed by relatively poor people; Perhaps NYC is just too expensive for murderers to live in?

[bevis the lumberjack]

I live in Houston. It ain’t the registered, listened gun owners that are doing the killing. It’s the guys that don’t care about gun free zones. So what’s the explanation for the difference?

[bernard11]

I don't know the explanation.

I'd guess more widespread gun ownership has a lot to do with it, but finding good data is not easy.

[IsaacDanielcm]

The single best indicator of homicides is the percentage of the population that is black or Hispanic.

[Kazinski]

An interesting thought experiment, say you had three people arrested for having a loaded concealed gun in the Time's Square "Sensitive Area", one a felon carrying an illegally acquired weapon, one an illegal alien carrying another illegally acquired weapon, the third a licenced gun owner with a concealed weapons permit of "good moral character.

Which do you think is the most likely to be released without bail, and have the charges dropped or reduced?

I'm guessing Bragg is going to release the felon and the illegal alien in hours, the charges will definitely be dropped against the illegal alien because they don't want him to be deported, the licensed gun owner is going to have to make bail, and will be charged with a felony.

[Sarcastr0]

That thought experiment of yours is fact free, but shows how insane your persecution complex is.

[IsaacDanielcm]

No, it's really not. Look at what Bragg tried to do to Jose Alba, the bodega clerk who killed one of Bragg's "brothers" in self defense. Bragg is a black supremacist who supports blacks first. Since the felon in possession is statistically almost certain to be a black, he will release him, as race comes first to Bragg. But the licensed gun owner is statistically almost certain to be a white, so Bragg will prosecute.

[David Nieporent]

Anti-semitic white supremacist tries to justify himself by claiming his enemies are the real racists.

[IsaacDanielcm]

The real racists are blacks and their white enablers.

[bernard11]

Do you want an answer, or are you just using the hypothetical to make a ridiculous accusation?

Assuming you do, I'd say it's 99% the licensed guy will be released, and if he's white was probably least likely to get arrested in the first place.

[Life of Brian]

No notice. But still a felony.

Is it? Here's the statutory definition of the so-called "sensitive location":

(t) the area commonly known as Times Square, as such area is determined and identified by the city of New York; provided such area shall be clearly and conspicuously identified with signage.

I wouldn't want to be in the shoes of a prosecutor forced to argue that a handful of signs sprinkled around a 34-block area would constitute "clear and conspicuous identification" of the entire area.

Seems like they need to go hard or go home. And why in the world wouldn't they plaster up huge signs every hundred feet or so? Surely they're proud of their efforts to assure that bad actors have a defined safe haven where they can assault tourists, set off bombs, and mow down swaths of pedestrians with cars free from the potential inconvenience of meeting an unexpected lead slug.

[Mr. Bumble]

In response, Times Square will be expanded to the area from the Battery to Hell's Gate and from the Hudson River to the East River with signs on all bridges and tunnels.

[Brett Bellmore]

"And why in the world wouldn't they plaster up huge signs every hundred feet or so?"

Because they expect this law to be overturned in a real hurry, and don't want to waste too much money on signage they'll just have to take down in a few months?

[Mr. Bumble]

When did Dems ever worry about wasting money. You give the contract to your politically connected friend just like they did with Covid testing.

[BadLib]

Perhaps the other signs were liberated as souvenirs by those who want a visual artifact of ridiculous laws that end up being overturned by SCOTUS?

Perhaps these are being collected by people out of fears that their grandchildren wouldn't believe that such ridiculous laws were ever seriously considered. Maybe much as people collect artifacts of slavery in America in the hopes that it will reduce the chances of future generations forgetting about that dark period in our history.

[Scribe]

From the department of unintentional irony:
Downtown from Times Square, about a mile or a mile and half, a block association in the West Village got fed up with the bums infesting their streets, sidewalks and stores (courtesy of the City administration and DA). So, they went upstate and hired a company to provide private, armed security guards to roust the bums.
It worked. The bums went away.
Until the end of the guards' shift.
Then they came back.

https://nypost.com/2022/09/10/nyc-block-hires-armed-security-guards-to-patrol-against-drug-ridden-street/

Deeply hilarious, in that the residents of the most liberal neighborhood in the most liberal city (East of San Francisco) went for guns when the liberal policies they supported made their life miserable - "worse than the 70s or 80s", said one.

Also hilarious in that, while the guns were there, the problem went away.

[Ed Grinberg]

the liberal policies they supported made their life miserable

"Feminism is dedicated to making women unhappy." (Dennis Prager)
"Liberalism" works the same way, but for everyone.

[Cloudbuster]

Would it really be better if there were signs everywhere?

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, sure: Fewer people unknowingly breaking this obscene law, and getting prosecuted for it.

Given some of NYC's practices in regards to firearms, such as the way they prosecute people for illegal firearms possession if they take custody of checked firearms after being diverted to New York airports by weather or mechanical problems, make it clear that they're not above deliberately going after unintended violations.

If anything, they relish doing that, because they don't view even legal gun ownership as innocent. Just a crime they can't yet go after.

[IsaacDanielcm]

These people won't ever stop unless force is used against them. In an ideal world, the next time New York tried to prosecute someone from Texas or Idaho for a gun violation, their state guard would have nukes and drop them inside midtown Manhattan. Call it the modern version of Fort Sumter.

[bernard11]

You are deranged, and muted.

[John F. Carr]

"We'll try to stay serene and calm when Alabama gets the bomb." -- Tom Lehrer