In 2022, the Supreme Court overturned a longstanding New York law that limited who could carry a concealed firearm. The landmark decision was hailed as a major win by supporters of the Second Amendment, while gun control advocates warned it could lead to increased violence. Despite the ruling, it appears that the situation on the ground has not significantly shifted.

For 25 years, John DeLoca has owned Seneca Sporting Range and Gun Store in New York City, known for its stringent gun laws.

When asked about the difficulty of owning a gun in New York City, DeLoca responded, “Very hard.”

For most of John DeLoca’s four decades in the gun business, carrying a concealed firearm in New York City required either being a police officer or demonstrating “proper cause,” a stipulation from a 1913 gun control law. Proper cause was largely tied to financial interests; it typically required having a check-cashing business, being a gun dealer, a diamond dealer, or operating a 24-hour gas station. However, in June 2022, this changed. The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, overturned New York’s law, ruling that the restriction infringed upon the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms.

The response from officials, including New York Governor Kathy Hochul, was swift.

Gov. Kathy Hochul said:

“Today, the Supreme Court is sending us backwards in our efforts to protect families and prevent gun violence. This decision could put millions of New Yorkers at risk.”

For DeLoca, known by the nickname Johnny Guns, the Supreme Court’s decision in Bruen has brought a significant change in who is eligible for a concealed carry permit in New York.

“It was everyone floodgates opened up” said Deloca.

This shift has affected New Yorkers like Michael Schiavone, who commented:

“I applied for a concealed carry permit recently due to the change in the law, and honestly, to exercise my constitutional right.”

Despite the Supreme Court’s ruling, obtaining a concealed carry permit in New York remains a complicated and time-consuming process.

Just eight days after the Bruen decision, New York state enacted the Concealed Carry Improvement Act. This legislation upheld the state’s rigorous background checks, required character references to assess moral character, and mandated that applicants complete 18 hours of firearm training. DeLoca, who provides these training courses, believes these measures are crucial safeguards.

John DeLoca said:

“I also believe there’s a correlation between irresponsible behavior and guns. Even though we limit our classes to just 20 people and include a lawyer to emphasize safety, it’s challenging to impress upon some individuals just how crucial safety is. You can’t stress it enough.”

In response to the Bruen decision, New York state imposed restrictions on where guns can be carried, even for those with permits. Sensitive locations, such as bars, the subway, and public spaces like Times Square, remain off-limits for firearms.

Attorney Peter Tilem commented:

“They essentially decided that if they have to allow people to carry guns, they’ll make it so that there are virtually no places where they can carry them.”

Peter Tilem, an attorney spearheading one of the numerous legal challenges against gun restrictions in New York, stated:

“Until this right is genuinely recognized as a constitutional right deeply acknowledged in their core officials will continue to attempt to restrict people’s ability to own guns. Can you think of any other right that you can’t exercise until you get permission from the government?”

Tilem contends that the restrictions New York state imposed following Bruen miss the larger issue of addressing illegal firearms.

Peter Tilem argued:

“The Concealed Carry Improvement Act targets licensed gun owners those who go through the lengthy 18-month process, pay the fees, and are clearly law-abiding citizens. Now, we risk giving them felony convictions for carrying in restricted areas. Clearly, New York is missing the point.”

In contrast, Eric Gonzalez, the District Attorney for Brooklyn, New York, asserted:

“Efforts to remove guns from homes are crucial for saving lives and preventing crimes.”

Brooklyn District Attorney Eric Gonzalez highlighted that the city has been struggling with a persistent influx of illegal firearms from states with more lenient gun laws. This issue was underscored by a recent voluntary buyback event that retrieved nearly 100 illegal guns.

Gonzalez noted:

“Seventy percent of the guns recovered in Brooklyn after crimes essentially come from three or four Southern states.”

Eric Gonzalez said:

“Seventy percent. And they keep coming. These buybacks also help us understand how guns are circulating in our city.”

After the Bruen ruling, Gonzalez was among the city leaders who argued that the decision would make New York City less safe, describing it as “a nightmare for public safety.”

When asked if he still holds that view, Gonzalez responded:

“I’m still concerned. You know, the density of the city, you know, we’re not spread out. We’re vertical. You know, you don’t want people pulling out a firearm to start shooting it out because they see a crime in progress.”

In the two years since the Bruen ruling, New York City has seen reductions in violent crime, including a 19 percent decrease in murders and a 31 percent drop in shooting incidents.

Eric Gonzalez remarked:

“I really hope the Supreme Court understands that states need the ability to regulate this within their own jurisdictions. If we continue to allow unrestricted carry, we could see an increase in violence.”

In Queens, concealed permit holder Michael Schiavone expresses ongoing concern despite the decrease in crime:

“There are still a lot of guns on the street. We’re dealing with people carrying illegal firearms everywhere, which puts citizens in a very precarious situation. This is especially troubling in places like the subway system, where people might want to carry a firearm but are now prohibited from doing so.”

In June, the Supreme Court ruled in a separate gun case that individuals who pose a threat can be disarmed.

However, attorney Peter Tilem, who is involved in one of over 450 lawsuits filed since Bruen, believes the Supreme Court will need to provide further clarification:

“I don’t think we fully grasp the impact of Bruen yet. It’s going to influence every aspect of daily life. I anticipate that the boundaries of the Second Amendment will be more clearly defined in the next five to ten years.”

In the meantime, cities like New York are left to navigate the uncertainty between ensuring public safety and adhering to the Second Amendment.