The Supreme Court made it clear that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual’s right to keep and bear arms for self-defense in public. The public includes unsafe, crowded places like “Times Square.” The court clearly stated;

Nothing in the Second Amendment’s text draws a home/public distinction with respect to the right to keep and bear arms. As we explained in Heller, the “textual elements” of the Second Amendment’s operative clause— “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be in- fringed”—“guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. Heller further confirmed that the right to “bear arms” refers to the right to “wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.”

This definition of “bear” naturally encompasses public carry. Most gun owners do not wear a holstered pistol at their hip in their bedroom or while sitting at the dinner table. Although individuals often “keep” firearms in their home, at the ready for self-defense, most do not “bear” (i.e., carry) them in the home beyond moments of actual confrontation. To confine the right to “bear” arms to the home would nullify half of the Second Amendment’s operative protections.

Moreover, confining the right to “bear” arms to the home would make little sense given that self-defense is “the central component of the [Second Amendment] right itself.” Heller, 554 U. S., at 599; see also McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767. After all, the Second Amendment guarantees an “individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation,” Heller, 554 U. S., at 592, and confrontation can surely take place outside the home.

Although we remarked in Heller that the need for armed self-defense is perhaps “most acute” in the home, id., at 628, we did not suggest that the need was insignificant else- where. Many Americans hazard greater danger outside the home than in it. See Moore v. Madigan, 702 F. 3d 933, 937 (CA7 2012) (“[A] Chicagoan is a good deal more likely to be attacked on a sidewalk in a rough neighborhood than in his apartment on the 35th floor of the Park Tower”). The text of the Second Amendment reflects that reality.

The Second Amendment’s plain text thus presumptively guarantees petitioners Koch and Nash a right to “bear” arms in public for self-defense.

The sensitive places doctrine is an exception to the general right to the peaceable possession and carry of arms. The Court has explained that schools and government buildings are “sensitive places.” Whether a place is a “sensitive place” is determined by historical record and/or particular place’s sensitive government interests or vulnerabilities. A longstanding history exists if there ‘are no disputes regarding the lawfulness of such prohibitions.” Constitutional law professor David Kopel explained that ‘factors which make places “sensitive” might be a place where most persons therein are minors (K-12 schools), places that concentrate adversarial conflict and can generate passionately angry emotions (courthouses, legislatures, polling places), or buildings containing people at acute personal risk of being targets of assassination (many government buildings). However, the answer cannot be that the places are crowded. Sometimes they are, but no more so than a busy downtown sidewalk, and sidewalks are not sensitive places.’ As explained by the Court in a big city such as Chicago,

“[A] Chicagoan is a good deal more likely to be attacked on a sidewalk in a rough neighborhood than in his apartment on the 35th floor of the Park Tower”). The text of the Second Amendment reflects that reality.”

The Court also specifically stated that a place is not a sensitive place simply because it is crowded. Nevertheless, the new NY law bans handguns in places of a “sensitive nature,” which overbroadly includes all churches/places of worship, government buildings, all public parks, all kinds of schools, all public transit (apparently including all vehicles for hire (cabs/Uber/limo)), hospitals, shelters, residential group homes, nursing homes, and medical facilities, among others. It also prohibits law abiding citizens from carrying a handgun in Times Square.

Said prohibition is an obvious middle finger to the Court’s opinion and to anyone who desires true freedom and values unalienable rights, because the court already said so - a crowded place is not a sensitive place simply because it is crowded or busy. In fact, it is common sense among unwilling slaves that in a busy, crowded place a law abiding citizen is more likely to be confronted by criminals.

According to FUNKTIONARY:

Freedomination – the liberty to choose the commitments, ideologies, covenants, contracts, judgments, and relationships that bind or restrain you within the Matrix. (See: The Matrix, Negative Hallucination, Phfreedom, Freedom & Liberty)

freedom peddlers – political agitators who fail to address the structured incapacity of most people for freedom and their inclination towards freedumb. Freedom peddlers talk about how free things are—but fail to mention the price of upkeep.

freedom seeker – those who realize they are not free, earnestly seeking those who really have control, or are their masters, but have not yet identified just who they are (much less, how they are being enslaved) in order to secure from them the freedom they so desire. The impulse to be free is not for the few. All are called, many hear, few respond. You are not a mistake or a problem to be solved. You are not the ego. You are the consciousness beyond the ego. Your search will remain in limbo or you will reach despair until you realize that you are always-already the singular sought-seeking pair. (See: Seeker, “I,” My, Ego, True Self, I-AM, False Self, Chapel Perilous, Bedside Baptist, Meditation & Seeking)

freedumb – the state of unrecognized psychological captivity (brain hemispheric hostage) that sheeple remain in because they don’t speak the language of reality nor constantly edit truth from perfecting heart to perfecting power—and when truth is spoken around them, refrain from being open, or impervious to it thus being forever chained to its distortions and limitations. 2) the mindset that proposes “since we are liberated, we are also free.” 3) the mindset that operates upon the notion that you can have individuality without accountability or responsibility. 4) the pretense that reality is truth and viceversa. People cherish unwarranted assumptions and relish their freedumb because they have been socialized into selfcensorship along with misidentification with the ego-mind—the absence of knowledge of Self. (See: Phfreedom, Truth, Unfreedom, Dumbelievers, Self, Belief Systems, Objective Truth, Individuality, Objective Reality, True Self & Reality)