A court just upheld New York City’s gun bans in Times Square and in subways. So only criminals can be armed in those areas. You, not so much. Let’s talk about what that means for us. And where we go from here? Hey everybody, my name is Jared. This is Guns and Gadgets, and welcome back. Today I’m going to break down a major decision that came out Friday in the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. New York’s law banning firearms in so-called sensitive areas, which includes places like all of Times Square, the subway system, commuter trains, etc., well, it’s been upheld.

And before I jump into it, I left a big clue on my socials. Join my socials if you’re not a member of my Twitter or X or my Instagram or even the Facebook if you’re into that stuff. Put stuff on there that don’t really make the channel sometimes. There’s a big hint on something that’s coming soon, something rare that I hope to get to do again. But the paid members of Patreon will get their first dibs on that because you all have been supporting me over the years, which is awesome. So it’s a way for me to give back to y’all.

And also I do codes and ways to save money on cool things, so join my Twitter specifically. Instagram and Facebook and Telegram, I have all of them, so check them out. And check out the sponsor today, it’s Blackout Coffee. Blackoutcoffee.com slash gng can always save 10% with code gng10. And I thank you for supporting us and checking out Blackout Coffee. We’ve made it seven years thanks to your support. Guys, if you carry a firearm legally or are considering doing so, if you care about gun laws or you just want to stay informed, then this case is something you need to understand.

By the end of the video, you’ll know what the ruling says, why it was upheld, and what the arguments for the case and against the case were, and how it’s going to affect you if you live in or visit New York City. So let’s dive in. For some background, in 2022, New York passed the Concealed Carry Improvement Act, often abbreviated as the CCIA. And it’s among its many provisions, this law gave the state the power to ban firearms in sensitive places. State power. Now, what are sensitive places? Well, under New York’s law, it includes, among other things, all of Times Square, the New York City subway system, commuter trains, also areas where large crowds congregate.

Now, again, only criminals can carry there, so don’t worry about saving yourself. Now, the idea is that in certain high-density or high-visibility public places, allowing firearms could increase the risk, even for lawful carriers. For some reason, Hochul and the mayor of New York and the idiots around in the political world, they don’t think there’s guns there. Then how do people keep getting shot? I don’t know. Soon after the law was passed, a group of gun owners challenged parts of the CCIA, specifically the restrictions about open carry, permit requirements in New York City, and designations of particular areas as firearm-free zones.

Now, they argued that those aspects violate the Second Amendment, and duh, right? And the case went up to the Second Circuit, and on September 20th, 2025, the court issued the ruling. So what did they decide? Well, number one, they upheld sensitive places’ bans. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that New York can designate areas like Times Square and the Subways as firearm-free under its law. Number two, historical precedent matters. The court leaned heavily on the history of such bans. There were none. There were none that are consistent with this nation’s historical tradition of firearms regulation.

There were none, but here we go, dumb courts. The activist courts will bend and twist words so that it just fits their agenda. But the court leaned heavily on history of such bans through places throughout the U.S., they say, and state law. Now, places have long restricted carrying weapons in certain public high-density or government-controlled settings, and the court said that these kind of restrictions are consistent with U.S. tradition. No, they’re not. They’re not. Because it’s supposed to be at the time of the founding and the time of the adoption of the Second Amendment.

This didn’t happen then. Now, number three, the densely populated public space factor that they talk about. A line from the decision is, quote, there is perhaps no public place more quintessentially crowded than Times Square, end quote. The reasoning is that Times Square is similar to historic marketplaces or public squares, which courts have traditionally allowed to have restrictions on firearms to prevent public disturbances. Hmm, let’s do the Bruin test. No, they weren’t. Number four, not yet final on the constitutionality of this, the court said. While this ruling upholds the restrictions for now, the court did not fully resolve all constitutional claims because they know they would lose.

Now, the case is being sent back to a lower court for further proceedings. And that means more legal arguments are ahead and more challenges could emerge. So let’s break down both sides here. The proponents, or people for the ban, argue that in crowded, high-traffic areas, the risks of accidents, panic, or escalation could be greater. So please, Big Daddy Government, please be a nanny and tell us what we can do, where we can do it, and how we need to do it. But banning firearms reduces one of those risks, according to the proponents of the bans.

They also, the people in favor of the bans, also say, as the court noted, there is legal tradition for gun restrictions in certain public spaces. And courts have historically recognized that not all places must permit firearms. Then there was the vulnerability factor they always go on. They say subways and commuter trains and Times Square. They’re always filled with people, tourists, locals, commuters, et cetera. And the idea is that in such locations, it’s harder to identify threats or control interactions, et cetera, which is exactly why good people need to arm themselves. Now, the environment there, they say, tends towards chaos.

So, you know, just get stabbed in the neck. That’s cool with the governments, like Charlotte and New York. But don’t you dare try to defend yourself. Then there’s the regulatory authority that they always say, that they say the states have the power under their police powers to regulate for public good. The Concealed Carry Improvement Act is an example of states exercising that power, that bullshit made up fake-ass power that doesn’t actually govern where we get to stay safe. Now, opponents or challengers to these bans say that the Second Amendment has been infringed. They say that banning guns in these places limits their constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

Especially since many gun owners abide by the law, they argue these restrictions penalize lawful behavior. They also have self-defense concerns. In places that are high traffic, may be remote or vulnerable, and citizens often argue that they need ability to defend themselves. And they’re right. Restriction removes that possibility. And critics also point out that outlawing guns in certain areas does not stop criminals from carrying illegally. So it primarily affects law-abiding citizens. It’s a slippery slope. If many places are designated sensitive, I mean, are more and more public spaces becoming off-limits to us? Reducing the scope of the Second Amendment substantially? Yeah, it is.

So here’s what to walk away with for now, both what is settled and what remains open. What is now settled, for the moment, I’ll stress that because things will change here. The Second Circuit has affirmed that New York can maintain laws which ban firearms in Times Square on subways and commuter trains under the CCIA. The historical precedent argument is strong here, and courts will look to America’s tradition of regulating weapons in sensitive spaces. But what sensitive spaces? Just because I say that my box of instant coffee is a sensitive place doesn’t mean it goes all the way back to the founding and that you can’t carry guns there.

Stupid-ass courts. Now, lawful gun owners carrying in these designated areas are likely to be in violation of the law. Should you decide to let the law dictate whether you get to live another day, even if you have a permit? Now, what is not resolved as of yet is the full constitutionality of all aspects of the law. Since it’s being remanded, sent back to that lower court, there may be future arguments that could secede or narrow the law. Now, what counts exactly as a sensitive place may be further litigated. For example, which public spaces beyond Times Square and subways might be added or removed under that definition.

And how enforcement will play out in practice is a big one too. How often are these rules going to be enforced? How will police or transit authorities in New York, or public signage for that matter, communicate these bans? And what penalties for violations are they going to be and what will they look like? So what does this mean for you? Whether you’re a gun owner, a traveler, or just someone living in or visiting to New York City? Well, number one, if you carry firearms, either legal concealed carry or open carry where it’s permitted, make sure you know where you are.

If you’re in New York City, especially around Times Square or subway stations or commuter train platforms, they’re off limits under the current law. Even if you are coming from a place that allows you to carry once you enter these illegal communist zones, sensitive areas of the law and that prohibits firearms there. Number two, if you’re a traveler or a tourist or even a local, always check local laws before you travel, especially in big cities. States differ and differ vastly, and even within a state, municipalities and transit authorities can have specific rules.

New York City is among the strictest when it comes to firearm regulation. Number three, other jurisdictions are watching this case. The Second Circuit ruling may serve as precedent. States under the Second Circuit, which is in New York, Connecticut and Vermont, they will likely see this as validating broader powers to designate sensitive spaces, which I hope is not the outcome here. Other circuits may consider similar arguments as well, which is also a danger. It could embolden other states to pass or enforce similar bans if they haven’t already. Number four, on legal strategy and future challenges, if you or groups are challenging restrictions, you’ll likely see arguments focusing on what counts as a historically recognized sensitive space, whether the density or character of a place justifies a restriction and whether restrictions are narrowly tailored.

And then there’s the implications here on public safety and policy. Supporters say this helps reduce tragedies in crowded spaces because Lord knows nobody has taken a truck and run it through a crowd. But opponents say it reduces the ability to deter or respond to threats. Either way, the ruling shapes policy debates on where to draw lines between gun rights and public welfare. Now to sum this up, to package it up for you nice and neat, the Second Circuit has affirmed New York’s power under the CCIA to ban firearms in sensitive places like Times Square and the subway system.

That doesn’t mean the fight is over, but it does mark a significant legal victory for those in favor of stricter gun laws and high-density public spaces for now. If you carry or you’re considering to carry, remember, I am not a lawyer and I’m not giving you legal advice, but this ruling underlines why knowing where you are matters, not just if you have a permit or not. That doesn’t really matter in New York. I’ll be watching closely to see how this plays out in the lower court and whether or not any new challenges emerge that could narrow or expand what constitutes a sensitive place.

If anything changes, guys and gals, I’ll bring it up to you. But all you gotta do to stay in the loop is subscribe to this channel. I’ll do a video every day except every now and then I take a day off to be with my wife and kids like yesterday, but I will always bring you that news. So thanks for tuning in. If you found this video helpful, please hit the like button and share it with anyone who carries or needs to be aware and consider subscribing if you want to keep up with legal rulings on gun law and how they affect us in everyday life.

Let me know in the comments. Do you think this ruling is fair or too restrictive? Or is the balance between rights and public safety struck correctly here? I don’t think so. I don’t think… I don’t think… My rights shouldn’t be curtailed for anybody’s fear or their own public safety. No where in the Constitution does it say the government is supposed to keep public safe. I keep me safe. I’d love to hear what you have to say. I’d love to hear your thoughts. And I’ll see you on the next one. Until then, guys and gals, be safe.

Stay vigilant. Carry a gun to keep you, your friends, your family, your community safe. That’s why we have the Second Amendment. We don’t get our rights from the people in suits in your state houses or even on Capitol Hill. I’ll see you on the next one. Take care. Thank you. [tr:trw].

See more of Guns & Gadgets 2nd Amendment News on their Public Channel and the MPN Guns & Gadgets 2nd Amendment News channel.