Opponents of gun control won an important decision in New York State a few days ago, when a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction against the part of a state law that restricts carrying guns onto someone else’s private property without their consent, as well as restrictions of carrying a gun in parks or on a public bus. Once again, the gun lobby protects the right to kill.
The Buffalo News reported:
A federal judge in Western New York has granted a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the “private property exclusion” in the state’s new gun control law that includes an attempt to ban carrying firearms on all private property unless the property owners consent, as well as in places like parks and public transit.
The lawsuit was brought by two local gun owners and two national Second Amendment rights organizations in September in response to legislation passed during an emergency session this summer after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down New York’s existing concealed carry law, which required applicants to prove why they needed to carry a firearm.
In a 27-page ruling, U.S. District Court Judge John L. Sinatra Jr. with the U.S. District Court in Buffalo wrote that the state may not interfere with the Second Amendment rights of “law-abiding citizens who seek to carry for self-defense outside of their own homes….”
The two gun owners, John Boron of Depew and Brett Christian of Cheektowaga, and the Las Vegas-based Firearms Policy Coalition and the Second Amendment Foundation of Bellevue, Wash., have said the state law prevents lawful gun owners from carrying firearms in most public places.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
The entire notions of natural and property law are based on the notion that the individual has some measure of personal privilege on their own property, their minds, and their ability to offer labor. The idea of not allowing or mandating something to be done on or to one’s private property without consideration of the proprietor is also basic. This throws that basis of logic out of the window. In the past, as in eminent domain issues, the public has had to prove an overriding public interest over a private one and, theoretically, make the person whole again through compensation and other services.
In essence, the natural extension of this law is that private interest will never take precedence over publicly-mandated will or, at a minimum, all of the burden of proof and logic is placed a defendant who has no chance of winning. It is the essence of totalitarian law, one that allows normal people to buy into the banality of evil without consequences if it is ever exposed. It is “legal,” after all.
One more step closer to the insanity of total anarchy where anything goes, in a Mad-Max country.
I bet if private property owners “stand their ground ” (with a shotgun) against anyone who carries a gun onto their property without their consent, that will pretty well take care of the problem.
A gunundrum indeed!
Seriously, whom would the jury side with in a case where a private property owner shot someone who was effectively trespassing on their property with a gun?
If someone comes onto your property with a gun without your consent, there is only one reasonable assumption: that they intend to do you or your family harm.
If you purposefully go onto someone else’s property with a gun, I don’t see how you could reasonably claim you were carrying it for “self defense”, except maybe in the bizarro “interpretation” of the Rittenhouse jury.
On second thought, I guess whom the jury would side with depends upon which state you live in.
In Wisconsin, you could undoubtedly go onto someone’s private property kill their entire family, claim self defense and have a jury acquit you.
Which is why I will never again set foot (or even automobile) in the state of Wisconsin.
Hmmm. Going to have to check my enemies list twice (’tis the season, after all) and see if I can get any of them to move to Wisconsin.
The deceptively written cited article makes it seem that people who are not police officers have a right to come onto your property armed with guns, and that their right overrules the your rights as an owner.
That is, to put it nicely, misinformation.
Here’s what the judge actually said, as you can see for yourself: (https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/65344403/49/christian-v-nigrelli/)
“Another one of New York’s new restrictions imposed in the immediate aftermath of the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision is the private property exclusion.”
“That new provision makes it a felony for a license holder to possess a firearm on all private property, unless the relevant property holders actually permit such possession with a sign or by express consent.”
….
“Property owners indeed have the right to exclude. But the state may not
unilaterally exercise that right and, thereby, interfere with the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens who seek to carry for self-defense outside of their own homes. Thus, the motion for a preliminary injunction enjoining Defendants’ enforcement of this private property exclusion is granted.!”
The judge explicitly says the property owner can exclude people with guns.
That’s not the way the media read the decision and it’s not what I read in the decision.
Read the first two paragraphs. The new law gave owners of private property the right to forbid people with guns to enter their property. The judge struck down that part of the law.
Here’s a the link to blog by Eugene Volokh, a law professor at UCLA who clerked for a Supreme Court Justice.
https://reason.com/volokh/2022/11/22/court-blocks-n-y-s-requirement-of-express-owner-permission-to-carry-guns-on-private-property/
The headline says the same thing I’m saying.
The law said that you were automatically forbidden to carry a gun on private property unless the owner posted a sign saying guns were permitted or told you personally that you could carry.
The state is speaking for all property owners and saying that guns are forbidden. They are creating a default on all private property that no guns are allowed, but they allow the property owner to overrule the default with a sign of explicit statement.
That’s a reversal of the norm, where you have the right to carry unless a sign or explicit verbal statement forbids it.
Read the first three paragraphs of the ruling together and you should see things clearly.
Btw, if you’ve ever read the media on any subject which you are intimately familiar with, you wouldn’t be surprised by misinformation coming from the media.
What bothers me is the editing that leaves out the admission that property “owners indeed have the right to exclude” (non law enforcement) people carrying guns.
That frankly looks like intentional deceit, rather than incompetence or sloppiness.
The Buffalo News appears to think that dishonesty is appropriate in the service of getting people to agree with their opinion.
Compare the unedited paragraph to the edited one to see if they can be trusted.