G F Z’s  by Bohdan Rabarsky

Last month another horrific shooting occurred, yet again in a “Gun Free Zone (GFZ).”  American Conservative political activist Charlie Kirk was assassinated on the grounds of Utah Valley University. GFZ’s include all schools, at both the local or state levels, as well as any property within 1,000 feet of a GFZ.

Two months ago, another horrific tragedy occurred in a GFZ, this time at the Annunciation Catholic Church in Minneapolis Minnesota. The shooter was of legal age and purchased his weapons legally. The weapons used weren’t automatic weapons, assault weapons or weapons of war, but a shotgun, a semi-auto pistol and a semi-auto rifle. While the crime scene was still active, Minnesota Democrats were out in full force calling for “sensible” gun control, bans on assault weapons and weapons of war. Calls were made for Congress to act and blame was laid at the feet of Republicans for doing nothing.    

If the Democrat leadership can’t control the narrative, they lose the upper hand in the gun control battle.  They always focus on the type of weapon, instead of focusing on both the shooter and the “Gun Free Zone”.  In fact, in almost all cases, GFZ’s are absent from the discussions.

One of the school shootings that captured national attention was the April 20th 1999 shooting at Columbine High School, where so-called assault weapons were used. Though the primary attack was supposed to be made with bombs, they didn’t detonate, so the firearms were the secondary method of attack. Columbine had one (SRO) School Resource Officer.

Interestingly, five years before the Columbine shooting, Congress had passed a Federal Assault Weapons Ban as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, but it didn’t seem to deter the Columbine shooters, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold.  

The original Gun-Free School Zone Act (GFSZA) of 1990 was declared unconstitutional by SCOTUS in U.S. v Lopez. So, in 1995, Congress amended the GFSZA to apply only to firearms that had moved in interstate commerce, which is just about all firearms. This reinstated the gun free zone, which also didn’t deter Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold.  

Democrats keep blaming the NRA’s lobbying influence over Republicans, but when Democrats have had their chance to make changes, they did nothing. In the 117th Congress, President Biden had control of both houses and did nothing. In the 118th Congress, Democrats controlled the upper chamber, yet they also did nothing.

A handful of states allow either public or private schools to have armed teachers. Some states passed these laws after experiencing a mass school shooting. For example: Florida allowed armed teachers after the 2018 Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School mass shooting; Texas allowed armed teachers after the 2022 shooting in Robb Elementary School in Uvalde.  

If Congress was serious about ending school shootings, protecting the most vulnerable amongst us and allowing teachers the ability to teach in a safe environment, here are a few things I believe they should allow:

1.      Mandatory metal detector at a single-entry point of the school.

2.     Plain clothes armed school resource officers in every school.

3.      Use retired law enforcement & military personnel as SROs in school; they’re already trained in the use of firearms.

4.      Offer certified and trained teachers the ability to carry conceal, with firearms being easily accessible to only the teacher within the classroom in the event of an attack.

If legislators are serious about stopping shootings, they will stop obsessing on the firearm and shift their focus to a real problem, GFZ’s.

Don Lemon Speaks  by Tom  Reynolds

Don Lemon appeared on “The Left Hook with Wajahat Ali,” and said, “If you believe in the Second Amendment, if you believe in the Constitution, Black people, Brown people of all stripes, whether you’re an Indian American or a Mexican American or whoever you are, go out in your place where you live and get a gun legally. Get a license to carry legally.”

Uber liberal Don Lemon is encouraging people to get licensed and buy a gun!  Wow, can’t disagree with him – for the first and only time.  Of course, he’s referring to only black and brown people and not all those other skin colors covered by a colorblind 2nd Amendment.

This is the same Lemon who spent years decrying the "culture of violence" associated with firearms and he is now championing the 2nd Amendment that he once dismissed as a relic of white privilege.  How can it be white privilege if black and brown people can use it? 

What happened?  Did a poltergeist take over his body? 

The rest of Lemon’s quote tells us more.

“Because when you have people knocking on your door and taking you away without due process as a citizen, isn’t that what the Second Amendment was written for?”

Whoa!  Lemon is saying the 2nd Amendment is to protect us from government overreach!  Next thing, he’ll be quoting the NRA.

His statements are also confusing.  He mentions citizens but seems to be referring to illegal aliens, who are not citizens.  No one is knocking on Indian American citizens and Mexican American citizen’s doors and taking them away without due process.  Does he want illegal aliens to get a gun?  (Tren de Aqua is way ahead of him.)  

As usual, the most ardent gun grabbers know nothing about the facts – or is Lemon intentionally misleading people?  It appears that Lemon is mixing very different circumstances together in order create sympathy for illegal aliens in the U S A.  Here is the actual situation on illegal alien gun possession:

18 U.S.C. 922(g)(5) makes it illegal for specific non-citizens to possess or receive firearms or ammunition.  Specifically:

Individuals unlawfully present in the United States, such as those who entered without inspection, overstayed visas, or otherwise lack legal status.

Unauthorized presence alone disqualifies an individual from firearm ownership. The Tenth Circuit, in United States v. Huitron-Guizar, ruled that the Second Amendment does not extend to undocumented immigrants.

A conviction can result in up to 10 years in federal prison under 18 U.S.C. 924(a)(8). If the violation is connected to other criminal conduct, sentencing enhancements can extend the prison term.  Additional charges may apply in cases involving false statements on firearm applications, which is a separate federal offense under 18 U.S.C. 922(a)(6) and carries up to five years in prison.

Under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(C), any non-citizen convicted of a firearms offense is subject to deportation. Federal prosecutors may pursue charges even if the firearm was not used in a crime.  A single conviction can trigger removal proceedings. Even without a conviction, a mere charge can prompt U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to initiate removal proceedings based on unlawful presence or a visa violation.

Immigration judges consider firearm-related conduct when determining bond eligibility, making it difficult for illegal aliens to avoid detention or removal. Prosecutors argue that defendants without lawful status pose a flight risk, making it difficult for non-citizens charged with firearm violations to secure release while awaiting trial.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and ICE enforce these laws. 

After writing all this, I suddenly realized that this was Don Lemon talking.  Who cares what Don Lemon says!

School Safety  by Jess Nassar

I teach at the New York State School for the Deaf located in Rome, New York. After fourteen years of teaching, something is now troubling me. As I have gotten older and wiser, I have become concerned about the lack of security in our building. Safety should never cross my mind while teaching, but now it does.  Times are changing for the worse. All schools should be protecting both students and staff.

If the school can’t protect us and I am not allowed to do so on my own, what recourse do I have? I reported my concerns to my union representative and I am hoping they will put safety first. Without safety I cannot educate.

After the latest shooting in Minnesota, where the gun person admitted they were targeting children in a ‘gun free zone’, it really made me think about the abundance of mindless hate in this world.  At my school, students are Deaf and obviously are not going to hear the gun shots. These students and staff need extra protection because they are even more vulnerable than the general education population.

Metal detectors and an armed guard should be present in all schools regardless if they are public or state run, like mine. 

Recently, I went to my local county building to help my husband sign up for a pistol permit and that place is guarded like it’s the White House. All measures to protect our county employees are in place, yet we don't do the same for our children? Since they don’t let the teachers carry their own weapons to protect themselves - and most importantly our youth - every school should have metal detectors and armed guards. No exceptions.

It is always better to be safe than sorry.

A machinegun (an automatic) expels multiple rounds with a single function of a trigger.

In a Forced Reset Trigger (FRT), the bolt forces the trigger to reset, allowing the shooter to take quicker follow-up shots.  An FRT only fires a single round with each function of the trigger.

Earlier this year, Ammoland reported that the ATF and DOJ entered into an agreement in National Association for Gun Rights v. Garland with the government admitting that FRTs are not machine guns (automatics).  The government then decided to drop all other lawsuits across the country.

The federal government is dropping its FRT cases.  End of story.  Right?

Not in deep Democrat areas like Washington D.C.

Someone made an anonymous tip to the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) reporting that a D.C. resident had an FRT.

An MPD Investigator applied for and received a search warrant from a D.C. Superior Court Judge by stating that an FRT can convert a semi-automatic firearm to a fully automatic firearm.  On October 8, the MPD conducted a raid on the DC resident’s apartment where they found several FRTs.  After obtaining an additional search warrant, MPD recovered multiple firearms, a 3D printer, filament, five SD cards, four USB drives, two laptops, three electronic storage banks, and one cell phone.

An MPD Investigator and ATF Special Agent responded to the scene and interviewed the DC resident. According to the police report, the man admitted to knowing “what FRTs are and how they are capable of turning a semi-automatic firearm into a fully automatic firearm.”

MPD arrested the D.C. resident for Possession of a Machine Gun (and Pistol License Violation) even though the DOJ and the ATF have previously agreed that an FRT is not a machine gun, making them legal under federal gun laws.  Possessing an automatic manufactured after 1986 is a crime.  All FRT’s were made after 1986 but an FRT does not make a semi-automatic into a machine gun.

Deep blue / far left areas are so caught up in their determination to do away with all civilian gun ownership that they ignore the federal government (DOJ and ATF).  We have here a confrontation between the feds, (which say FRT’s are not automatics) and D.C, (which says FRT’s are automatics.)  D.C. may have the lead in this case but deep blue states like California and New York will not be far behind.

Hawaii Sensitive Places

Hawaii has a law banning guns in certain "sensitive locations."  The law reads (emphasis added):

[§134-9.5]  

(a)  A person carrying a firearm pursuant to a license issued under section 134-9 shall not intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly enter or remain on private property of another person while carrying a loaded or unloaded firearm, whether the firearm is operable or not, and whether the firearm is concealed or unconcealed, unless the person has been given express authorization to carry a firearm on the property…

(b)  For purposes of this section, express authorization to carry or possess a firearm on private property shall be signified by:

                          (1)  Unambiguous written or verbal authorization; or

(2)  The posting of clear and conspicuous signage at the entrance of the building or on the premises…indicating that carrying or possessing a firearm is authorized.

Sounds a lot like New York State’s misnamed Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA).

The law was initially blocked by a district court judge.

A 3-judge panel of the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (the most far-left, most reversed circuit court in the United States) reversed the judge and upheld the law, in 2024. In his dissent, Judge Lawrence VanDyke said the law "effectively nullified the Second Amendment rights of millions of Hawaiians." 

The Supreme Court (SCOTUS) has agreed to hear a court case challenging the private property part of this; Wolford v. Lopez.  (Lopez is Hawaii’s Attorney General and will defend the law.)  No date has been set for oral arguments.

Wolford et al and the Hawaii Firearms Coalition say that the case violates the 2022 SCOTUS decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which states that firearm restrictions need to be consistent with the nation’s “history and tradition.”

…the Ninth Circuit erred in holding, in direct conflict with the Second Circuit, that Hawaii may presumptively prohibit the carry of handguns by licensed concealed carry permit holders on private property open to the public unless the property owner affirmatively gives express permission to the handgun carrier, and that

the Ninth Circuit erred in solely relying on post-Reconstruction Era and later laws in applying Bruen’s text, history and tradition test* in direct conflict with the holdings of the Third, Fifth, Eighth and Eleventh Circuits.

The Trump administration’s Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote in a court filing:

"From the earliest days of the republic, individuals have been free to carry firearms on private property unless the property owner directs otherwise…Because most property owners do not post signs either allowing or forbidding guns, Hawaii’s default rule functions as a near-complete ban on public carry. A person carrying a handgun for self-defense commits a crime by entering a mall, a gas station, a convenience store, a supermarket, a restaurant, a coffee shop, or even a parking lot."

"The structure and operation of Hawaii’s law reveal that the law serves no legitimate purpose and instead seeks only to inhibit the exercise of the right to bear arms."

Hawaii argued in a brief that the Second Amendment does not override a property owner’s right:

“The rule can be upheld for the independent reason that it represents a valid governmental effort to vindicate property owners’ fundamental right to exclude by enacting a default rule that comports with the community’s reasonable expectations…there is no right to engage in speech or carry firearms on someone else’s property without her consent."

* Under Bruen’s text, history and tradition test:

The first step is to look at the original text and meaning of the Second Amendment. The courts have held that “the people” are at least Americans who have reached the age of majority, which in the United States is 18 years of age. Handguns are bearable arms, so the Second Amendment covers the plaintiffs’ conduct.

The second step puts the burden on the state. It must show that a law is consistent with the nation’s history and tradition of firearms regulation by using historical analogues.

The question that is argued is whether historical analogues must come from founding era, which most consider to be the ratification date of the Second Amendment in 1791. Others argue it is the ratification date of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, which, they hope, allows them to try and use ‘Jim Crow Era’ laws restricting gun ownership of blacks.’

In Israel, south of Jerusalem, an Israeli Defense Force reservist (IDFer) was driving when he heard the sound of a crash behind him.  He looked in the mirror and saw a vehicle had driven into a bus stop.  He stopped his car and quickly exited and saw wounded people with blood on them. Then, he saw a man get out of the offending vehicle but he did not know if this was an attacker or an accident victim.  When someone shouted, ‘He has a knife,’ the IDFer drew his concealed pistol, chambered a round, held it in two hands at eye-level, and confronted the terrorist.  The IDFer shouted for the attacker to stop, in Arabic.  Instead, the attacker began what was described by the IDFer as “a frenzied run toward me.” The IDFer fired two shots at the attacker’s legs and the IDFer believes at least one of them hit.  But the attacker kept running so, while backpedaling, the IDFer shot him in the center of mass, and the attacker fell.

The IDFer added, “In my opinion, he was drugged. I shouted at him, and he continued advancing toward me. I shot him, and he fell. The word 'neutralized' is a euphemism; it has no place in this context. Terrorists must be killed.”

Perhaps the IDFer was initially following Joe Biden’s advice to shoot assailants, “in the leg instead of the heart.”  Or, at one time, Israelis were instructed to “shoot at the feet first.” Whichever the case, the IDFer was unwisely adhering to bad advice.

When one’s life is directly and imminently threatened, one needs to stop the threatening individual as quickly as possible. Most would agree that the best way to stop an individual is to inflict lethal wounds, preferably multiple lethal wounds!  And the best way to do that is shooting ‘center mass.’

A favorite feature of old westerns was for the ‘good guy’ to shoot the gun out of the hand of the ‘bad guy’, usually without wounding the ‘bad guy,’ just disarming him.  Unless you have a death wish, don’t try that in real life.

And even more menacing to your continued good health is to “shoot to wound.”  Attempting to use your pistol to inflict wounds intended to be “non-fatal” endangers your own life and needlessly prolongs the incident.

When someone gets a gun for protection, they need to realize that stopping a threatening individual almost always involves inflicting grievous wounds that will likely end the attacker’s life.  An unpleasant but necessary fact, to be considered. Before an incident happens, gun owners need to think about when to use lethal force.  It should be used as a last resort. 

DOJ vs LA Sheriff

SCOPE had previously reported that Attorney General Pam Bondi had announced the formation of a Department of Justice (DOJ) “Second Amendment Enforcement Task Force.” Bondi noted, “For too long, the Second Amendment, which establishes the fundamental individual right of Americans to keep and bear arms, has been treated like a second-class right. No more. It is the policy of this Department of Justice to use its full might to protect the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens.”

In the Task Force’s first high-profile move, the DOJ filed a federal lawsuit against the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, alleging deliberate delaying tactics by the Sheriff’s Department in processing applications for California concealed carry licenses.

The complaint was filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Some quotes from the complaint:

“…Between January 2024 and March 2025, Defendants received 3,982 applications for new concealed carry licenses. Of these, they approved exactly two…This is not bureaucratic inefficiency; it is systematic obstruction of constitutional rights.”

“The mechanics of this obstruction are equally damning. Defendants force applicants to wait an average of 281 days—over nine months—just to begin processing their applications, with some waiting as long as 1,030 days (nearly three years). The median delay is 372 days. These delays far exceed California’s own statutory requirement that licensing authorities provide initial determinations within 90 days, demonstrating Defendants’ flagrant disregard for both state law and constitutional obligations.”

“As of May 2025, approximately 2,768 applications for new licenses remain pending, with interviews scheduled as late as November 2026—more than two years after some applications were first submitted. Numerous applicants simply gave up and withdrew their applications, often after waiting months in Defendants’ deliberately stalled process. These are not abstract statistics; they represent thousands of law-abiding citizens who have been stripped of their constitutional right to self-defense outside their homes.”

“…Defendants have constructed an administrative labyrinth designed to frustrate and ultimately deny this fundamental right to virtually all who seek to exercise it.”

It appears that Bondi’s DOJ is serious in defending 2A rights. 

As SCOPE previously wrote, the significance of this is that citizens will not have to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars suing the LA Sheriff’s office but, instead, we have the federal government using its resources to right an obvious wrong about a fundamental right.

Unfortunately, similar practices in Democrat run states make this a huge problem and will require huge resources to counteract these unconstitutional practices.

Lessons From General Marshall

Many 2nd Amendment defenders and SCOPE members are veterans who follow, with considerable interest, the goings-on in the current military service.  On Tuesday, the senior military officers and enlisted were called to a meeting by Secretary of War Hegseth and President Trump.

But first, a little history. 

General George C. Marshall was the highest-ranking Army officer in World War 2; at that time, the Air Force was known as the Air Corps and was also a part of the Army.  Marshall was sworn in on September 1, 1939.  The same day that World War 2 started with the German invasion of Poland.  (What a way to start a new job!)  The U.S.A. did not enter the war until Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941.

In his book, The Generals, Thomas E. Ricks writes that Marshall understood that political and other pressures “had resulted in the appointment to high command in past wars of so many mediocre and even incompetent officers.”  Marshall set about weeding out ‘mediocre and incompetent officers’ before the USA entered the war.  He later said about this subject, “I was accused…of getting rid of all the brains of the army.  I couldn’t reply that I was eliminating considerable arteriosclerosis.”

At Tuesday’s meeting, Secretary of War Hegseth said that the military has promoted too many leaders for the wrong reasons; political pressure based on race, gender quotas and historic firsts.  “The era of politically correct, overly sensitive don’t-hurt-anyone’s-feelings leadership ends right now at every level.”

Sounds straight out of George Marshall’s plan to increase military readiness and effectiveness.

Even before Marshall was appointed Chief of Staff, he was thinking about what would be the necessary traits for the upper ranks when a war broke out.  Two of the qualities he was to demand of his officers were “physically strong” and “display marked energy.*  Marshall had “determined that most of the top generals in the Army were too aged for combat, and just below them were many officers who were also past their prime.”

At Tuesday’s meeting, Hegseth said, “…I’m also directing that war fighters in combat jobs execute their service fitness test at a gender-neutral, age-normed, male-standard, scored above 70%...It all starts with physical fitness and appearance. If the Secretary of War can do regular, hard, PT, so can every member of our joint forces.”

Sounding absolutely Marshal-like.  Hegseth added that the physical fitness standards included generals and admirals.

By the time we entered WW2, two years after he had assumed office, Marshall estimated that he had forced out at least 600 officers.  It will be interesting to see the reaction and results from Hegseth’s imitation of General Marshall.

Hegseth has issues to deal with that Marshall did not.  It would not be only generals and admirals complaining about new physical fitness standards.  Anticipating criticism, Hegseth said it is not about preventing women from serving in combat positions.  “If women can make it, excellent; if not, it is what it is. If that means no women qualify for some combat jobs, so be it," he said. "That is not the intent…”

President Donald Trump summed up the meeting, but he could also have been summing up the purpose of the 2nd Amendment: “The [purpose] of America’s military is not to protect anyone’s feelings. It’s to protect our republic…We will not be politically correct when it comes to defending American freedom. And we will be a fighting and winning machine.”

The Socialism movement in America has a goal of disarming the American citizen and Socialists have made inroads by hiding their ultimate goal behind emotional terms meant to evoke feelings instead of rational thinking.  “Gun violence” and “assault weapon” are a few examples.    

Our military deals with national defense and the 2nd Amendment is intended to work in parallel to our military and deal with local defense; personal protection.  Just as what is now happening in our military, we must cut through the rhetoric, stand firm against every attempt to weaken the 2nd Amendment and roll back the inroads made over the past ninety years.  No wavering when it comes to defending the freedoms protected by our Constitution.     

*The other qualities Marshall wanted were: good common sense; have studied your profession; cheerful and optimistic; extreme loyalty; determined.

Projection  by Tom Reynolds

There is a saying that whatever the Democrats are accusing you of doing, they are already doing, themselves.  I saw a recent article in Ammoland that adds another dimension to that saying and, perhaps, it explains some of the motivation of the Left. 

Sigmund Freud called it “projection.”  People assign their own fears, flaws, and impulses to others as a psychological defense mechanism.  It’s easier to accuse someone else and attach your own toxic personality traits onto others than it is to confront yourself.  For example: If a man feels emasculated and insecure, he labels masculinity itself as “toxic.”

Projection is also political and it might just explain why the anti-gun Left is so determined to disarm law-abiding Americans.

The Democrat leadership will tell you guns are the cause of violence as if an inanimate object can, by itself, initiate violence.  Or are they really projecting their own thoughts that, “If I had a gun, I might lose control.” It’s not our behavior that they’re afraid of, it is their own behavior, projected onto us. 

Lately, there have been several “gun violence” incidents by radical left wingers.  The media and the Democrat leadership quickly blamed guns for the actions of those left-wing radicals and called for more gun control.  Is it deliberate misinformation or political spin or is it the Democrats’ inability to face uncomfortable truths about themselves?  Did the Democrat elite again come face-to-face with their own worst fears about themselves?

Their inability (or refusal) to self-reflect when mixed with their toxic ideology becomes extremely dangerous. (We on the Right are not paranoid, the Left really is out to get us!) 

Everyone can fall into the same trap.  But on the right, there’s a level of moral restraint, (spiritual / religious grounding), that keeps most – but not all - of us from acting out violent fantasies. Many of us live with a belief in higher accountability. But in an atheistic communist society, there is no spiritual higher power.  Those with a conscience tend to use their power responsibly. Those without a conscience, who project their violent impulses on others, can become unpredictable and unstable.

Does the Left oppose civilian gun ownership because they assume that we’ll use a gun the way they imagine themselves using it? That we’ll act on the same immoral impulses they’ve refused to confront in themselves? 

Do they want to be sure we cannot use guns against the Democrat power elite because they see themselves as taking up arms against the Republican power elite?

To SCOPE members and many other Americans, a firearm is a tool for protection, for hunting, for preserving life, and defending the innocent. To others, it’s a tool of power and aggression. That difference lies not in the object, but in the mind of the holder.

Should we worry about the person who views a gun as a last line of defense or the one who sees it as a first strike in an act of violence?

NY City

Two off-duty officers were waiting in plain clothes for the train on a Long Island Rail Road platform when a man attempted to rob them. One of the officers shot the thief and he was hospitalized in stable condition. The officers sustained minor injuries.

 The police identified the thief as Jahmar Stewart, 32, whose last known address is a Brooklyn homeless shelter.

Three - of many - issues here are NY City’s soft on crime policies, the inability of NY City citizens to get a concealed carry permit and "gun-free zones"

According to the New York Post, Stewart has a number of arrests to his name this year. New York City's soft-on-crime policies returned a violent suspect to the streets, even when he was already facing charges from a previous arrest.

Stewart was arrested on August 8th for allegedly attacking another resident at the homeless shelter.  The victim was gathering his belongings when he got into an argument with Stewart, who slugged him multiple times.  The top charge in that case was third-degree assault, which is not bail-eligible, and Stewart was released on his own recognizance.

Stewart was busted on a petit larceny charge July 16th for allegedly stealing fruit juice from a bodega on East New York Avenue.

Stewart was also arrested and charged with menacing in July for allegedly threatening another resident at the homeless shelter with a knife, but was released on his own recognizance.

Stewart was arrested and charged with misdemeanor assault in June, after allegedly hitting another resident in the head with a tree branch. 

If they are going to allow criminals to roam the streets, shouldn’t citizens be able to ‘bear arms’ to protect themselves.  Didn’t the Supreme Court’s heller McDonald and Bruen decisions have something to say about citizens bearing arms to protect themselves?  Apparently, Supreme Court decisions do not apply in NY City.

The NYPD is slow-walking the issuance of concealed carry permits. In fact, the department won't even say how many permits have been issued this year, but there are ongoing lawsuits featuring plaintiffs who have waited a year or more to receive their carry permit.  In other cases, litigants have been awarded their permits only after they've filed suit.  (You have to hire an attorney or threaten a lawsuit to exercise a fundamental civil right in NYC, unless you're willing to wait a year or two before being able to legally bear arms.) 

Since most of NYC is a “gun free zone,” the few New York City residents who've been able to obtain a license to carry are prohibited from lawfully carrying throughout much of the five boroughs, including on public transportation, A 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals panel upheld "gun-free zones", declaring that "prohibiting firearms in quintessentially crowded places" is part of the national tradition of gun ownership.   

There's virtually no chance of legislative relief in New York State dominated by leftist gun grabbers in all three branches of government.  There is litigation but it will take years. In the meantime, American citizens in New York City remain at risk from violent predators and are prohibited from exercising their Second Amendment right to armed self-defense.

This was apparently the third attempted robbery of off-duty police officers in the Big Apple within a week-long span.  Luckily for the police, they can carry a firearm when off duty; something denied to almost all other law-abiding New York City residents.  Why should off-duty law enforcement be the only ones who can protect themselves with a firearm in these dangerous environments? 

Answer.  Because Kathy Hochul says so.  If you don’t like being told what you can’t do, vote  her out in 2026.