After Bruen was handed down recognizing that limits in some sensitive places could be constitutionally permissible, Hochul went on television to say in a mocking tone that they would just come up with a long list of sensitive places. At the time I remarked that it was a rather foolish statement since that clip will be cited by challengers to show a clear attempt to undermine the ruling with yet another transparent loophole argument.The list would seem to cover most areas outside of the home, including government buildings; any location providing health, behavioral health or chemical dependence care or services; any place of worship or religious observation; libraries; public playgrounds; public parks; zoos; the location of any state funded or licensed programs; educational institutions both in elementary and higher education; any vehicle used for public transportation; all public transit including airports and bus terminals; bars and restaurants; entertainment, gaming and sporting events and venues; polling places; any public sidewalk or public area restricted for a special event; and protests or rallies.

It is hard not to see that listing as an obvious effort to do precisely what Hochul said: to recreate the ban by including virtually every location as a “sensitive area.” …

Once again, it is baffling why New York voters continue to enable this type of leadership. New York routinely opts for legislation that offer immediate political benefits while causing long-term precedential damage. It is reckless and cynical, particularly when two justices (Roberts and Kavanaugh) have signaled their willingness to accept reasonable limits. Instead, Gov. Hochul and others have once again assembled the same circular firing squad of new, easily challengeable legislation.