Honestly I think it is a convergence of two things.
I think, unless they actually are idiots and I don't think many of them are, they expect some/most/all of what they are doing is going too get struck down and struck down hard.
But it is a VOTING tactic. LOOK WE ARE TRYING TO PROTECT YOU FROM SCARY GUNS AND THE CONSERVATIVES ARE TRYING TO KILL YOU!!!! Drive the voters to the polls come November. Drive the donations now. It's a bill about getting votes and donations.
The other is, I honestly think they expect courts to go along, or at least go along enough that they won't do things like slap immediate injunctions on the new law prior to review. As sweeping and as extreme as NY's new law is, I would absolutely slap an injunction until it could be decided in court (now, don't get me wrong, I am not judge. But I HAVE once stayed at a Holiday Inn Express).
So I think its those two driving it. If they really expected the courts to immediately slap a pause on it (or within weeks, someone still has to file suit and request an injunction which will take some time), I am not sure they would have gone quite as extreme. Maybe still, after all, voters.
On Volhka, I disagree with most of what he said. Yes, I think in the short term we are in for some pain. I hope MD won't pull this same kind of shit (at least Frosh will be gone by the new session), or certainly not to the same extreme. But I also expect the courts and especially SCOTUS are not going to put up with a lot of this. He has a point about Alabama. But that was also prior courts before this decision that decided the off limits on private property part. I would HOPE that someone filing suit on that specific portion would make a 1A argument that it was FORCING a private property owner into speech to allow a constitutionally protected activity on their property. I am not aware of any other constitutionally protected right where a private property owner must expressly communicate to people that they can do it. Can they ban it, of course the private property owner can. But they have to take the affirmative step to ban it. Don't want someone wearing a "Weed is king" shirt on your property or in your store, you have to tell them not to. Don't want them praying to Mecca because they get caught out at that time of day, you have to TELL them not to. Constitutionally protected rights should be ASSUMED to be okay if the person is otherwise allowed on the private property unless the private property owner or their agents expressly post that said activity is not allowed or verbally communicate to the person it is not.
Do I think a political march for a redress of grievances should go protesting on a strip malls parking lot on the way to city hall? Of course, not. But the mall's owners should also have to post some signs or have someone empowered to tell the protesters (it could even be empowering the police to ask them to leave) to detour around their property as they don't want the protestors cutting through with their signs and coordinated chants.
Anyway, of all of the provisions, the private property one might be the one most likely to fly out of just about everything suggested. I still suspect SCOTUS won't see it that way (nor should they). IMHO, if the general public is allowed there, then the general public should be allowed to carry a firearm (at least concealed) if they so wish unless the private property owner tells them no. I can ALMOST see a case where private property where the general public that is not generally open to the public can default to no.
Most of the other stuff? Nope. Nope. Nopeity nope. They can probably get away with the training and renewal requirements. Possibly/probably the storage requirements. I think that is going to be about it. The references, the social media accounts, everyone living in your household, ammunition background checks for the gun registered to you, etc. I think are going to fall flat like a wet fart in church. And I think the vast majority of the public places listed as being sensitve places will also fail. That is the most absurd part of it. Thomas was very clear in his examples. Times Square and Parks are the furthest thing from the examples given as possible. And the public transit is almost certainly going to fail as well. Government buildings, polling places and schools are likely to be upheld.
But I guess NY really just wanted SCOTUS to hand them a detailed list of the sensitive places guns can be banned. I suspect this is going to be a SHORT list.
Gun owners/valid permit holders are worse off as of today than before Bruen.
