THIS WILL WORK…WE PROMISE: New York City Posts ‘Gun-Free Zone’ Signs Around Times Square

By
John Boch
-
93
Robert Barrows of the New York City Police Department holds up a "gun free zone" sign during a City Council meeting Tuesday, Aug. 30, 2022. (William Alatriste/NYC Council Media Unit)

The city and state of New York continue to thumb their noses at the US Supreme Court’s Bruen decision, expanding the number of prohibited “sensitive” locations and generally ignoring the rule of law.

On Tuesday, the NYPD’s top legal eagle showed off the Big Apple’s new “Gun Free Zone” sign that the city’s galaxy brains dreamed up to ensure that no one carries a firearm where the city prohibits it. Because “gun-free zone” signs have worked so well in the past.

The NY Daily News covered the circus that unfolded at yesterday’s New York City Council meeting on Tuesday . . .

The cops are copying signs declaring Times Square’s gun-free status after local lawmakers banned firearms in the Crossroads of the World.

Robert Barrows, the NYPD’s executive director of legal operations, held up one of the signs — which screamed “GUN FREE ZONE” — at a City Council hearing on Tuesday focused on securing sensitive spaces after the Supreme Court gutted the state’s concealed carry handgun law.

After the June ruling from the nation’s top court, state lawmakers passed and Gov. Hochul signed laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons in various high-risk settings including Times Square, subways, buses and bars. The rules take effect Thursday.

City Council members also introduced their bill this month to redefine the Times Square area as a sensitive location after the ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.

With gun control laws falling left and right, it’s just a matter of time until fresh new lawsuits throw out these punitive gun control laws New York rammed through as after the Bruen ruling was handed down.

Eventually, the rule of law shall prevail.

In the mean time, New Yorkers and the city’s visitors can bask in the comfort and security of knowing that Times Square is one place in the city where criminals and terrorists absolutely will not be able to carry a gun. Because it says so right there in big, bold letters.

 

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

93 COMMENTS

  1. Looking at the picture, the first thought that comes to mind is “do these dingleberries actually believe that this is effective?”

    Idiots

    • As the previous article stated; it’s Death Wish. The problem is, it’s the NYC politicians that wish death upon their subjects.

    • It’s not about “effective”, the powers that be could not care less about the safety of the public. THIS is about a great big “FUCK YOU, you can’t tell US what to do”!!! while displaying the middle finger in the face of the Supreme Court… Constitution? CONSTITUTION? We don’t NEED no stinking Constitution…

    • Drink enough Democrat patented koolaid and you’ll believe anything.

      I’m yet to see how a particular demographic who are already ignoring laws regarding robbery, assault, rape, narcotics, car theft, burglary, murder, etc are going to be deterred by a “Gun Free Zone” sign.

      Perhaps the Democrats koolaid needs to be bottled and sold for mandatory consumption.

    • How about putting up signs that read “KILLING ZONE.” It’s about time that the truth about these zones is exposed.

    • Our local news channel in Raleigh actually headlined (gaslighted) this story to start off the hour with all the video clips of the signs and such and acting like these signs was going to make Time Square a utopia of peace.

      If they had only put up these signs a few years ago just think of all the lives that could have been saved!

      The level of stupidity is jaw dropping.

  3. I would rather it was a crime free zone. When are they going to start pushing that on signs instead? But that’s never been the goal, gun free zone only applies to the law abiding. They encourage crime in NY.

  4. Damn. I guess I can’t go shoot-up Times Square now. I might get in trouble.

    Is apparently how these idiots believe reality operates.

  5. See we need a federal law that requires people who have Gun Free Zones to pay 10,000 to any conceal carry citizen who is present during a violent felony.

    So say you are at a Mall..there is a violent crime..you are on the far end of the mall. After the incident you go up show your conceal carry permit…And within 1 week their insurance cuts a 10K check (tax free no change to any other payments) .

    Now multiply that by say 20 or 30 people at the mall. The insurance company starts cutting quarter of a mil or more in checks…they gonna up the cost to the insured.

    • Interesting idea. Could we think of a way to make it work? How could we coerce such an outcome?

      Insurance in America is under state control, not Federal control. To write insurance policies in the State of Confusion the insurance company must abide by the laws of that State. If the laws of that state are too onerous, the insurance company will stop writing policies in that state. However, if they are only mildly onerous the insurance companies will comply and pass-along the costs of compliance to their customers. That’s simply the way the insurance company works.

      Now, one’s intuition is that insurance companies are intensely interested in minimizing their exposure to claims. But this intuition might be wrong. Suppose the fire insurance industry. We would think that our fire insurance companies would have campaigns to encourage their customers to reduce their fire hazards. To charge owners of wooden buildings higher premiums and owners of brick buildings lower premiums. But this doesn’t happen. The last thing a fire insurance company would want to see is fire-proof buildings. Fire insurance companies depend absolutely on the existence of losses due to fire.

      So, the business insurance companies will – more likely than not – comply with such a law as you propose. Yes, they will suffer some additional losses. But, they will more than make-up for these losses by charging higher premiums. Provided, of course, that all business liability insurance companies are playing on a level field.

      So, let’s find the first state that is gun-carry friendly. Maybe it’s Alaska or Wyoming. We persuade the legislature to pass a law that requires merchants posting No-Gun signs to accept liability for casualties due to their failure to successfully enforce such policies. If you have such signs you must make extraordinary efforts to enforce the policy.

      Failing to do so, the merchant assumes absolute liability. This is insurable. So, merchants are apt to ask their underwriters to include a rider covering this liability.

      And, an insurance law should REQUIRE business liability underwriters to offer such riders. Now, merchants have several choices: install bag-check stations and X-ray machines with armed guards to force compliance; assume absolute liability for death/injury and penalties to CWP holders who check-in after an incident; pay for riders to pass the risk on to their insurers.

      As an additional incentive, a new state law could – and I agree it should – require the merchant to pay a “reasonable” penalty to patrons who show their CWPs after an incident. The penalty might be low; $1,000 or even $500. The merchant: failed to meaningfully enforce its No-Guns policy; AND, it discouraged law-abiding gun-carriers from bringing their guns to this venue.

      Had those gun-carriers NOT been so DETERRED, then they would have been there to defend themselves and others. They would have DETERRED the CRIMINAL.

      What is the public policy the voters, and their state’s legislators, choose to pursue? To allow operators of public venues to ENCOURAGE CRIMINALS and DISCOURAGE the LAW-ABIDING? Or, to find a modest and reasonable measure to do the reverse.

      Success in implementing this policy in either Alaska or Wyoming (even BOTH) isn’t going to move the needle in the remaining states. It WILL nevertheless, start a dialogue. That dialogue is apt to encourage several more states to adopt such liability laws.

      States such as CA or NY will never submit. However, once a significant minority of states adopt such laws as we are contemplating here, residents of the remaining states will begin to wonder about their own states’ policies. They will start to become aware that criminals will pursue their attacks in their hoplophobic states, eschewing the risk of armed-response in those states which support civilian carry.

      • “We would think that our fire insurance companies would have campaigns to encourage their customers to reduce their fire hazards. To charge owners of wooden buildings higher premiums and owners of brick buildings lower premiums. But this doesn’t happen. The last thing a fire insurance company would want to see is fire-proof buildings. Fire insurance companies depend absolutely on the existence of losses due to fire.”

        I stopped reading right there. As a former insurance professional, I have direct experience to the opposite of what you described.

        Have you ever insured a business? Have you ever read your business or personal homeowner’s or auto insurance policy?

        Apparently not, or you wouldn’t have written such drivel. Enough said.

  6. The problem here is that pro-gunners, and anti-gunners use the same words, with completely different intent/understanding.

    The phrase, “Do something about….” is a perfect example.

    For pro-gunners, the meaning and intent is “Do something effective about….”. For anti-gunners the meaning and intent is “Do something, even if it is wrong.

    In the context, posting signs fulfills the entreaty to “Do something about gun violence”.

    Thus, GFZ signs are logical, andfull of hope and promise, with the reward of feeling good about one’s self.

    Actually, nothing to really see here.

    • May have gotten a counseling for using “fuck off with that bullshit” when it was announced that private business would be opt in for having concealed carry legal……..may have had a solid quarter of my coworkers in the same professional communications in the office training class for similar to identical reasons.

      • “May have gotten a counseling for using “fuck off with that bullshit” when it was announced that private business would be opt in for having concealed carry legal…”

        Greyman. Always Greyman.

        And….

        Keep smiling. Makes the world wonder what you are up to.

        • On that one not too worried as it was a lot of people involved including the one who gave me the counseling and the training is mandatory for everyone anyway 😋 but giving out fake troll/dox bait is admittedly dangerous.

  7. I still can’t believe the ‘gun free zone’ sign advocates think this actually works as a ‘gun crime deterrent’. More then 80% of the U.S. criminals using guns commit their crimes in areas with ‘gun free zone’ signs. (1 in 12 violent criminals use guns BTW including mass/school shooters, less then .004% use a rifle or shotgun of any type, the rest use knives/sharpened-pointed-objects, hands/feet, blunt objects, ligatures, chemicals, overpowering by numbers, etc…)

    “oh look a gun free zone sign, guess I can’t use my gun to commit a crime here. Darn it!” … is that how ‘gun free zone’ sign advocates think it works?

    For cripes sake, if the the ‘gun free zone’ laws and signs actually worked there would never be a school shooting or a mass shooting or a gun violence crime in such ‘designated’ areas.

    So what kind of sign do you have to deter the other 97% of the violent crime that does not use guns? Maybe a ‘ hands and feet free zone’ sign, ‘knife free zone’ sign. ‘overpowering by numbers free zone’ sign?

    Yes New Yorkers, your tax dollars at work to facilitate as much violent crime as your politicians can deny responsibility for.

    • .40 cal Booger,

      “‘oh look a gun free zone sign, guess I can’t use my gun to commit a crime here. Darn it!’ … is that how ‘gun free zone’ sign advocates think it works?”

      No. Most gun-grabbers openly acknowledge that violent criminals will violate the signs and only law-abiding citizens will honor the signs.

      Instead, most gun-grabbers claim that the signs are the right thing to do because:

      1) It is virtuous, VIRTUOUS I TELL YOU!, to be unarmed! (Barf.)

      2) Law abiding citizens who would shoot back at a violent criminal attacker will shoot multiple bystanders and cause even more casualties than an unopposed violent attacker.

      3) When cops finally show up, they will not be able to distinguish righteous defenders from violent attackers and will shoot righteous defenders. Since the righteous defender ends up shot anyway AND shoots multiple bystanders, it is better if the victims cannot shoot back and thus should be unarmed.

      That is the rationale that gun-grabbers use in defense of “gun-free” zones. The fact that their rationale is false doesn’t matter as long as the masses accept it, which they frequently do.

    • So, let’s print-up a bunch of reasonably-sized stickers reading:

      Rape-Free Zone
      Assault-Free Zone
      Mass-Shooting Free Zone
      etc.

      TTAG sells them for a modest mark-up. Each of us buys a dozen or so. And, we apply them to every Gun-Free Zone we encounter.

      Passers-buy should start to pick-up on the irony. Perhaps they will insist that the municipality maintain a squad of workers to remove the “defacing” stickers. That will attract still more attention to our campaign. The adhesive need only be sufficient to keep the stickers in place, not to damage the Gun-Free Zone sign. So, the gun-controllers won’t be able to get any traction that we are defacing public (or private) property.

  8. This needs to be challenged in the Courts. I believe the SCOTUS said people can travel through one of ‘those’ States with a firearm(s) as long as only passing through. What’s the difference if one is just walking through or on a subway and no intention of stopping in their ‘crime free-fire area’?
    maybe the legal eagles on here can chime in?

    • The thing for times square is a direct assault on the Bruen ruling. During arguments it was clear the court majority did not agree that a place like times square should be a ‘sensitive area’ on a routine basis and I’m pretty sure it did not need to be spelled out in the decision either.

      • “…and I’m pretty sure it did not need to be spelled out in the decision either.”

        Except, Thomas *did* spell it out.

        To the effect of – “The entirety of Manhattan cannot be a gun-free zone”.

        NYC is daring Thomas to rule again. Did they not learn from ‘Bruen’ what will happen if they think they can get ‘clever’ with Thomas?

        At this point, I really hope it gets challenged, an in their arrogance, allow it to show up in the SCotUS in-basket for ’round 2′ with St. Thomas.

        Someone needs to whisper loudly in the court’s ear that that’s something they really don’t want to do… 🙂

    • I would not trust the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold the Second Amendment. Roberts and Kavanaugh are too wishy-washy, and God only knows where Coney Barrett stands. Hell, you have one up there now who cannot even define what a “woman” is. We are in real trouble when these nine, unelected, unaccountable, gods-in-robes can decide what our rights are. It is bad enough with the idiots in both Chambers in Congress the people supposedly elect.

      • “I would not trust the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold the Second Amendment. Roberts and Kavanaugh are too wishy-washy, and God only knows where Coney Barrett stands.”

        Are you stoned, or simply stupid?

        Roberts, Kavanaugh, Coney-Barrett and 3 other SCotUS justices just ruled the 2A applies outside the home. California, New Jersey, and other slave states are crafting ‘shall-issue’ carry laws RIGHT NOW.

        WTAF is wrong with you, son? 🙁

        • WTF is wrong with me? Simple. Unlike you, I do not trust politicians, period! Simply because” the gods in robes” ruled in your favor this time, that they will always do so in the future? You are free to trust them, and make an a** out of yourself trusting them. And when they stab you in the back, I will feel sorry for you.

        • While I dont go out of my way to be as insulting as Shadow, I basically agree with him. The supremes have not exactly been our best friends on the gun side of the argument until exactly 69 days ago. I think that these guys are more or less on our side. Thomas and Alito especially, but Thomas could pass at any time. I think when the happens, there is a better than average chance they’ll turn on us and go back to letting the governement treat us as 2nd class (more like 4th class) citizens.

          They gave us in the slave states the right to get a permit (a government permit to exercise a right…interesting) so various slave states just said, “okay, then we’ll restrict where you can carry to the point it doesn’t matter anymore that you have the permit at all.”

          So…another 10 years to work through the courts on that one. Will Thomas be there then? doubtful. Alito? Maybe.

          The root of the problem is that one party is completely happy to be in full violation of the constitution and use lawfare to play their game. One party is completely happy to let them.

      • Hi Kyle, I do not mean to be too terribly rude or insulting. I guess as I get older, the ability to “smooth the words out” are not as readily there as when I was younger, and I just come off sounding awful sometimes. As for running for Congress, my beloved state just enacted rank choice voting, and am now catching up with the latest BS of how corrupt that is, with using it for our first, our special election to replace Don Young in the House. When someone as corrupt as Murkowski (and really, are any of them in Congress not, D’s or R’s?) thinks this is a great idea, you know we are in trouble. But also, having grown up in Communism, I see where this country is headed, and knowing so many people do NOT see what is right there in front of us (forget “it’s coming”) is disheartening to say the least. Neither party gives me any reason to trust them. And when Congress (both parties) stop representing the people, when the rule of law means nothing, then you know we are in a lot of trouble on so many levels.

  10. Over a dozen pending lawsuits on various aspects of our laws are grinding along so we will see what happens.

  11. I wonder if they should post Crime Free Zone signs too.
    That would work better then giving away free gunms, which you’ll never find at a gunm free zone sign. Look all you want, I can guarantee you’ll not find a free gunm.
    Gunm Free Zones are a lie.

    • The choices seem to be:
      Do you want a criminal to kill you?
      or
      Do you want the system to kill you for violating words on a sign?

  12. “Eventually, the rule of law shall prevail.”

    Leftists such as Hochul and Newsom know exactly what they’re doing. Bruen might be a matter of record now, Leftists are playing the “drag it out as long as possible” game in the hopes that the political & judicial winds will be blowing in their favor not too far down the road.

    For example, the Ninth Circuit remanded Hawaii v. Young back down to the original court to have the case re-heard under the parameters meted out by Clarence Thomas. Instead of simply following the spirit of Bruen and knocking down Hawaii’s “may issue” scheme, the Ninth is requiring the case to go from square one all the way through the system again, from the beginning. It’s already been a full ten years, and now Mr. Young (and all pro-2A Hawaiians) must wait again.

    Clown world. Leftists crave control, and that craving drives them to hate those who get in their way of total domination.

    • “..Clown world. Leftists crave control, and that craving drives them to hate those who get in their way of total domination…”

      Whether they know it consciously or not. I know people who are not aware enough of themselves that are Leftists/Progressives. It comes out during any discussion and usually sounds similar to “There ought to be a Law……”

    • “Leftists are playing the “drag it out as long as possible” game…”

      There’s a very real risk they anger Thomas by playing that game.

      We got better than strict scrutiny with ‘Bruen’. Do they really want to take a chance like that again?

      • “We got better than strict scrutiny with ‘Bruen’. Do they really want to take a chance like that again?”

        “Conservatives” want things settled, right here and now, forever.

        Dims want what they want,no matter how long it takes.* Thus, anti-gunners are hoping to stall things until they can pack the SC with leftists, and get the rulings the Dims want.

        *Thomas doesn’t have 30+ years ahead of him.

  13. Like they say, the definition of insanity is doing the same things over and over again expecting different results. Criminals don’t obey the law – just ask the demotator politicians.

    • Why don’t they just make murder illegal. That will fix all of this.

      You’d think that would work, funny thing….

  15. Eitherb this is legal or it’s illegal and everybody has the right to challenge this action through b due legal process I suggest you get to it or shut up!! My opinion is that if the gunowners and the gun trade in general do not soon co-operate in bringing in some obvious gun control laws eventually the general public will do it for you and that will inevitably mean far more Draconian legislation that perhaps is strictly nessessary.

    • Jesus f**kin’ Christ, where have you been for the past 20 years?

      “…if the gunowners and the gun trade in general do not soon co-operate in bringing in some obvious gun control laws eventually the general public will do it for you…”

      If only the English had worked with the Nazi regime to co-operate in establishing fascism in England, then we wouldn’t have wasted tens of thousands of American lives to save your sorry asses!

    • I suggest you get to it or shut up!! My opinion is

      Blah blah blah, there you go again ASSUMING anyone actually gives a fuk about what you think…

  16. “Why don’t they just make murder illegal. That will fix all of this.”

    This !!

    A thousand times, This !!

  17. “With gun control laws falling left and right, it’s just a matter of time until fresh new lawsuits throw out these punitive gun control laws…”

    Yep. A matter of years, or decades.

    “Eventually, the rule of law shall prevail.”

    Yep. Plessy v. Ferguson stood for 58 years. Roe v. Wade, 49 years.

  18. The left creates “Gun Free Zones” because they believe the presence of any gun is dangerous to everyone. It’s the same as their “safe spaces” for speech. These Lilly Livered Leftist are afraid of their own shadows and think there is some inherent right to “feel” safe.

  19. Comedy will ensue when DeShawn and Keysha pull out their gats to avenge some minor dis. The Worldstar videos will be epic!

      • “Not even gonna ask…”

        ChamPipple: cheapest Champagne mixed with best Ripple. Credit goes to Fred Sanford.

        • Damn Sam, I see you’ve stepped up yer morning game from marguetinis. I heard somewhere that diversity is a strength…

        • “ChamPipple: cheapest Champagne mixed with best Ripple.”

          Kinda like how Bartles and James wine coolers helped more guys get laid in the 1980s? 🙂

  21. @SAFEupstateFML
    “… but giving out fake troll/dox bait is admittedly dangerous.”

    Should have claimed you were treacherously misquoted by someone violating your civil rights.

  23. @Rider/Shooter
    ‘Ahh, .9mm; the pinprick of doom. I’ve looked and looked , for years, but alas…”

    .9mm is an American thing, and national security prevents it from being exported.

    • I understand, National Security n all. I mean, imagine how many countless rounds of this dangerous ballistic behemoth could be carried by one with nefarious intent (thus my prolonged searching…). Thank heavens ITAR and other affiliated alphabet agencies are looking out for us.

      • “Thank heavens ITAR and other affiliated alphabet agencies are looking out for us.”

        We aim to please; so you aim, too, please.

  25. Name 1 of the laws, bans, registration or permit schemes that has ever, or ever will prevent someone of criminal intent from either committing a violent crime, or arming themselves to do so.
    be honest. Murder has been illegal for a very long time. As has robbery, rape, B&E, and even simple theft. All illegal and all still happening even in the oh so civilized parts of the world according to the resident morons.
    Next thing is the so called “Gun crime” or “Gun Violence” crap. I’ve own many firearms in my lifetime. Handled many more in the Army and various hunting camps and gun ranges. No 1 has ever slithered out of the safe, crawled out of the cabinet, walked out the door and committed a crime or violent action. Which means I’ve had the worlds record in owning lazy or defective weapons, or the idiots in charge are dismissing the true problem of the human holding the firearms used in criminal acts.
    Instead of punishing the law abiding and the innocent, why not go after and punish the actual people committing the crimes?

  26. @Rider/Shooter
    “…I see you’ve stepped up yer morning game from marguetinis…

    Living on fixed income; gotta economize where possible.

      • “The big plastic bottle of Thunderbird Red with the little finger loop awaits.”

        “Thunderbird” is so 1950s; get over it.

        • Thunderbird” is so 1950s; get over it.

          AND the choice of the underage crowd in the 60s as well, at least that’s what I heard… Also heard rumors about a Pagan Pink Ripple and something called Everclear?

  27. @Geoff “I’m getting too old for this shit” PR
    “Kinda like how Bartles and James wine coolers helped more guys get laid in the 1980s? ”

    Way cheaper.

  28. NEW YORKER KNOW WHO TO VOTE FOR , IT’S THEIR STATE , VOTERS RULE .. THEY WILL GET WHAT THEY WANT .. SO GET YA BUTT OFF THE COUCH AND VOTE ..

  29. So…when somebody gets shot….they need to sue the city for not enforcing this…
    hit them in the pockets…then they might stop this

  30. Brett Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court recently made a long anti-gun diatribe declaring that the Cities had the right to restrict carrying guns in sensitive places so New York is not flouting the Supreme Court ruling at all. The Court craftily made itself look pro-gun while waving one hand and then sabotaged their own ruling with the other hand because at heart the are just as anti-gun as the Liberals are on the court.

    As I previously predicted when the Radical Far Right were cheering Trumps newly appointed jackbooted court, I made the prediction they would not be pro-gun.

    • Say, asshole, do you recall what Justice Thomas said specifically about “sensitive places?”

      “It is true that people sometimes congregate in “sensitive places,” and it is likewise true that law enforcement professionals are usually presumptively available in those locations. But expanding the category of “sensitive places” simply to all places of public congregation that are not isolated from law enforcement defines the category of “sensitive places” far too broadly. Respondents’ argument would in effect exempt cities from the Second Amendment and would eviscerate the general right to publicly carry arms for self-defense that we discuss in detail below. See Part III–B, infra.

      “Put simply, there is no historical basis for New York to effectively declare the island of Manhattan a “sensitive place” simply because it is crowded and protected generally by the New York City Police Department.”

      Justice Clarence Thomas, NYSRPA v. Bruen

  31. Under these stupid signs brave New Yorkers should post signs that read: “CAUTION! YOU ARE NOW ENTERING A KILLING ZONE!”

Comments are closed.