Francesco’s Law Would Rewrite New York Gun Storage Rules. Does Heller Allow It?

Legal-status notice — reviewed July 25, 2026: Francesco's Law, S.9629, is the final text passed by both houses of the New York Legislature on June 2, 2026. As of this review, NY Safe Inc. found no official evidence that Governor Kathy Hochul had signed it — the bill's own status tracker still shows it awaiting delivery to and action by the Governor. It is therefore discussed here as passed legislation awaiting gubernatorial action, not as current law. Existing Penal Law §§ 265.45 and 265.46 remain controlling unless and until a new law takes effect.

Executive Summary

Current New York law is conditional. In the home, Penal Law § 265.45 presently requires locked or disabled storage when the owner resides with a person under eighteen or with certain people legally prohibited from possessing firearms. Separate rules govern unattended firearms in vehicles.

Francesco's Law would make the home rule universal. The passed bill removes the household trigger. Any owner or custodian would have to lock the firearm in a qualifying depository or render it incapable of firing whenever it is outside the owner's "immediate possession or control."

The bill is not identical to the law invalidated in District of Columbia v. Heller. It contains an "immediate possession or control" exception and permits a safe rather than requiring disassembly. But Heller expressly rejected a home-storage rule that made lawful firearms unavailable for immediate self-defense. The constitutional dispute will turn on whether New York's mandate preserves meaningful defensive access or recreates that practical defect.

The best available evidence supports targeted child-access prevention laws. RAND's 2026 systematic review found supportive evidence that these laws reduce several youth firearm-injury outcomes. That evidence strengthens the case for protecting minors, but it does not by itself answer the marginal-benefit question created by extending New York's existing household-triggered rule to every adult owner, including someone living alone.

The cost is broader than gun policy. If the law is enacted and challenged, taxpayers may fund the State's defense, years of court proceedings, compliance changes, and potentially prevailing-plaintiff attorney's fees in a qualifying federal civil-rights action. The official sponsor memorandum lists fiscal implications as "None," a conventional legislative field that does not measure every implementation, enforcement, compliance, or litigation cost.

What Is Francesco's Law?

Francesco's Law is the short title of New York bill A.1962-B/S.9629, named for a seventeen-year-old who died by suicide in 2021 after accessing an unsecured firearm. That loss deserves to be treated with dignity, and it explains why supporters frame the proposal as suicide prevention and responsible-storage legislation rather than as a conventional gun-control bill.

The enacted-text question, however, is broader than the tragedy that inspired it. The bill amends Penal Law § 265.45 by deleting the language that currently limits the home-storage mandate to owners who live with minors or specified prohibited persons. In its place, the bill says that no owner or custodian may leave a rifle, shotgun, or firearm outside that person's immediate possession or control without first securing it in an approved safe-storage depository or rendering it incapable of firing with an appropriate gun-locking device.

That means the trigger would no longer be the presence of a child, a person subject to an extreme-risk order, or a person with a disqualifying conviction. The trigger becomes the owner's loss of "immediate possession or control" — full stop.

The final passed Senate text also repeals current § 265.46 and creates a new § 265.51. That new offense is a class A misdemeanor when an owner violates § 265.45 in a place where the owner knows or has reason to know a minor or prohibited person is likely to gain access — and that person actually gains access. The bill preserves exceptions for access resulting from unlawful entry and for a firearm obtained in a lawful act of self-defense or defense of another.

Version-control note: An earlier Assembly amendment, A.1962-B, contained a different graduated structure with additional felony degrees and school-notice provisions. The text that passed both houses on June 2, 2026 was S.9629. This article analyzes that final passed text, not earlier bill language.

The passed bill also requires safe-storage educational materials to be provided in connection with firearm licensing and directs the Office of Gun Violence Prevention to collect and analyze data on injuries and deaths of minors associated with unsafe storage. Those provisions are part of the bill even though the constitutional analysis here focuses on the expansion of § 265.45.

The Redline That Changes the Law

New York bill text uses a simple convention: matter in brackets is existing law proposed for deletion, while italicized or capitalized matter is proposed new language. The official S.9629 text states that drafting rule beneath the amendment.

Primary text: S.9629 official bill page, bill-text lines amending Penal Law § 265.45.

What New York Penal Law § 265.45 Requires Today

Current § 265.45 is narrower than many summaries suggest. Its home-storage requirement applies to an owner or custodian who resides with one of three categories of people:

• A person under eighteen years of age;
• A person the owner knows or has reason to know is prohibited under specified extreme-risk-order or federal prohibitor provisions; or
• A person the owner knows or has reason to know is prohibited because of a felony or serious-offense conviction.

When that household condition exists, a firearm left outside the owner's immediate possession or control must be locked in an appropriate safe-storage depository or made incapable of firing with an appropriate locking device. A violation is presently a class A misdemeanor.

The same section separately requires an unattended firearm in a vehicle to be unloaded and locked in an appropriate depository out of sight, subject to specified duty-related exceptions. Section 265.46 creates a lower-level violation, punishable by a fine of up to $250, for leaving a firearm outside immediate possession or control where the owner knows or has reason to know a person under sixteen is likely to gain access — even when the parties do not reside together.

Current Law Versus Francesco's Law

Six questions, side by side. Each table below stands on its own — read the current-law column first, then the passed-bill column.

Current § 265.45

Passed Francesco's Law (S.9629)

The bill also adds safe-storage educational materials tied to licensing and directs the Office of Gun Violence Prevention to collect and analyze data on minors' firearm-storage injuries and deaths — provisions that exist under current law only in narrower form.

The Constitutional Line Heller Drew in 2008

In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, with self-defense in the home at the constitutional core. The District of Columbia had prohibited possession of handguns and required other lawful firearms in the home to be unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device.

The Court did not hold that every storage regulation is invalid. It did something more specific: it invalidated a rule whose practical effect was to prevent citizens from using lawful firearms for immediate self-defense in the home.

"The requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense."

That sentence is the hinge of this article. The constitutional problem was not that the District encouraged responsible storage. The problem was that its mandate defeated the practical availability of the protected arm at the place and moment where the right was most important.

Heller's defect was functional, not brand-specific. The opinion did not constitutionalize one approved type of lock or declare every safe unlawful. It condemned a compelled period of unavailability. Whether a modern quick-access safe avoids that functional defect is a question a court would have to evaluate under the governing text and, after Bruen, the historical-tradition test.

Heller did not establish a universal number of permissible seconds. But access time, reliability, operation under stress, darkness or injury, and the resident's physical circumstances could matter when a court evaluates whether a storage arrangement preserves meaningful defensive access in the real world.

Fourteen years later, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen rejected the use of open-ended judicial interest balancing for Second Amendment cases. When the Amendment's plain text covers the conduct at issue, the government must justify the regulation by demonstrating consistency with the Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation. Public-safety objectives remain important in policymaking, but courts may not simply declare that a modern restriction's perceived benefits outweigh the burden on an enumerated right.

Is New York Reopening the Same Constitutional Question?

The answer requires precision. Francesco's Law is not a carbon copy of the District of Columbia ordinance. It does not ban handguns. It permits a qualifying safe-storage depository. It allows a firearm to remain available while under the owner's immediate possession or control. Those distinctions are the State's strongest starting points.

But the bill also does something current § 265.45 does not: it extends the storage command to every owner, every home, and every ordinary period in which a firearm is outside immediate possession or control. The phrase "immediate possession or control" is not invented by Francesco's Law — it already appears in current § 265.45. The bill's major change is that the phrase would govern every owner rather than only households within the current statutory trigger. The phrase remains undefined in the statute, so expanding the population subject to it magnifies the importance of its practical meaning.

Does a handgun on a nightstand remain under immediate control while its owner sleeps? What about a firearm in a bedroom quick-access safe while the owner is in the kitchen? Does control require the firearm to be on the body, within arm's reach, in the same room, or merely available within the home? The bill does not define the phrase, prescribe a maximum access time, or create a technology-based safe harbor.

Those are not invitations to violate the law. They are examples of why an undefined phrase can acquire much greater importance when its reach expands from specified households to every owner in the state. In practice, borderline cases may be evaluated after the fact by police, prosecutors, licensing officials, and courts.

The constitutional question is therefore functional:

No court has answered that question for this bill. Calling the outcome guaranteed would be irresponsible. So would pretending Heller has nothing to say. The Supreme Court identified the boundary in 2008. The Legislature has chosen to approach that boundary again with a statewide universal mandate.

What a Court Would Actually Have to Decide

No court has ruled on Francesco's Law. A serious challenge would require answers to narrower questions than the slogan "safe storage is constitutional" or "safe storage is unconstitutional."

1. Coverage: Does the Second Amendment's text protect keeping a functional defensive firearm readily available inside the home? Heller strongly answers that foundational question yes.
2. Burden: Does the universal mandate preserve meaningful immediate access, including while a resident sleeps or moves through the home?
3. History: Can New York identify a sufficiently analogous historical tradition supporting a universal home-storage mandate untethered to the presence of a child or prohibited person?
4. Exceptions: Are unlawful-entry and lawful-defense exceptions adequate, or do they operate only after a resident has already been investigated, arrested, or forced to defend a licensing action?
5. Remedy and posture: Would a court evaluate the law facially, as applied to a particular storage arrangement, or both? The answer could affect the scope of any injunction.

The Strongest Case for Francesco's Law

A serious constitutional article must present the strongest opposing argument fairly. Unsecured firearms can be accessed by children, people in crisis, prohibited persons, burglars, and unauthorized guests. Suicide attempts involving firearms are especially likely to be fatal. A family that loses a child does not experience the event as an abstract debate over statutory drafting.

Supporters also argue that modern quick-access safes can secure a firearm without preventing reasonably prompt access, making the law materially different from the disassembly-or-trigger-lock requirement reviewed in Heller. They may contend that the owner remains free to carry the firearm on the person, retain immediate control, or choose storage technology that opens rapidly.

Those arguments deserve real weight. Responsible firearm ownership includes preventing unauthorized access. NY Safe Inc.'s New York 16+2 concealed carry course teaches safe handling and secure storage as a matter of course — safety is not the enemy of the Second Amendment.

But good intentions do not eliminate the need for constitutional fit. The question is whether New York chose a rule tailored to households and situations involving a demonstrated access risk — or instead imposed a universal criminal command that reaches a responsible adult living alone, a domestic-violence survivor, an elderly homeowner, and a parent protecting children from an intruder in exactly the same way.

What the Evidence Supports—and What It Does Not Yet Answer

Safe-storage evidence deserves serious treatment. RAND's 2026 Science of Gun Policy review found supportive evidence that child-access prevention or safe-storage laws reduce self-inflicted fatal and nonfatal firearm injuries among youth and reduce youth firearm homicides. RAND also recommended continued data collection and study of the mechanisms through which these laws affect outcomes.

That evidence supports the legitimacy of rules designed to prevent minors from obtaining unsecured firearms. It is also consistent with the central tragedy behind Francesco's Law. Ignoring that evidence would weaken both the policy discussion and the constitutional analysis.

New York already has a household-triggered storage rule covering homes with minors and specified prohibited persons. S.9629 presents an additional question: what measurable benefit comes from removing that trigger and imposing a baseline criminal duty on every adult owner, including a person living alone with no minor or prohibited person in the home?

RAND's synthesis evaluates child-access prevention and safe-storage laws as policy categories. It does not resolve the bill-specific constitutional issue presented by New York's universal expansion, nor does it supply the historical analogue required if protected conduct is covered under Bruen. It also notes that many policy-and-outcome combinations remain understudied and specifically recommends broader research into outcomes important to gun owners, including defensive gun use.

Research source: RAND, The Science of Gun Policy, Fifth Edition (2026).

The People Bearing the Risk Are Not the People Breaking Into Homes

The debate is often framed as gun owners resisting safety. That framing misses the people actually regulated.

New York handgun licensees have already submitted to background investigations, fingerprinting, character review, fees, training mandates, interviews, and continuing licensing oversight. Many are parents, nurses, business owners, domestic-violence survivors, retirees, disabled residents, and shift workers. They are not asking for permission to chase criminals. They are trying to remain capable of responding if violence enters their home.

The people most burdened by a universal storage mandate are not the people committing violent home invasions. They are the people sleeping inside the homes those criminals choose to enter.

A responsible parent may simultaneously have two duties: prevent a child from accessing a firearm and preserve the ability to protect that child from an intruder. A sound law should permit both. It should not assume that only one danger is real.

This is also why the home matters. New York's law of self-defense recognizes that a person in a dwelling, when not the initial aggressor, may have no duty to retreat before otherwise justified deadly force. Yet a firearm-storage mandate can affect whether the resident has access to the defensive tool before the legal right to use force ever becomes relevant. Readers seeking a fuller explanation should review NY Safe Inc.'s guide to New York's castle doctrine and duty-to-retreat rules.

The Cost of Legislating at a Constitutional Boundary

New York officials regularly campaign on affordability, efficiency, and protecting household budgets. The official S.9629 sponsor memorandum lists "None" under fiscal implications. The memorandum identifies no stated fiscal implication, but it does not provide a quantified lifecycle estimate of enforcement, agency implementation, private compliance, constitutional litigation, appeals, or potential fee exposure. "No listed fiscal implication" is therefore not the same claim as "no taxpayer or public cost."

If enacted and challenged, the cost path can include attorney-general staff time, discovery, expert witnesses, trial proceedings, appeals, agency guidance, police and prosecutor training, licensing-bureau adjustments, and possible legislative revision after a ruling. In a qualifying federal civil-rights action — typically claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 — 42 U.S.C. § 1988 permits a court to award reasonable attorney's fees to a prevailing plaintiff. Fees are not automatic, do not apply to every state-court challenge, and would depend on the claims, posture, and result.

The point is not that constitutional litigation is illegitimate. Courts exist to resolve hard disputes, and states are entitled to defend duly enacted laws. The accountability question is narrower: when the Supreme Court has already condemned a home-storage regime because it disabled immediate self-defense, should lawmakers demonstrate — before enactment — how a new universal mandate avoids that defect?

A bill can contain no express appropriation and still produce public costs. Taxpayers fund the State's defense; in a qualifying federal civil-rights case, they may also fund a court-awarded fee recovery if challengers prevail.

Constitutional Comparison Matrix

Three doctrines, one running question — how each treats defensive access to a lawfully owned firearm.

Heller (2008)

Bruen (2022)

Francesco's Law (2026)

A Timeline of a Question New York Already Knew

The Constitutional-Stewardship Problem

The central institutional question is not whether lawmakers may pursue child safety. They may. It is whether a legislature acting after Heller and Bruen should demonstrate, before imposing a universal criminal rule, how the proposal preserves the practical exercise of the right those cases protect.

Constitutional stewardship means more than passing a law and waiting for a court to invalidate the parts that go too far. It means identifying the governing boundary, building the evidentiary record, considering narrower alternatives, defining ambiguous terms, and explaining why the chosen burden is consistent with controlling precedent and historical tradition.

Constitutional rights are not tested only by outright bans. They are tested by whether ordinary citizens can still exercise them when those rights matter most.

That principle reaches beyond firearms. Legislatures routinely operate near constitutional boundaries involving speech, privacy, due process, search and seizure, religious exercise, and equal protection. The responsible question is not merely whether government can identify a compelling policy objective. It is whether the law has been drafted with enough care that the constitutional right remains real rather than theoretical.

Questions Reporters Should Ask Before Covering Francesco's Law

Coverage becomes inaccurate quickly when a bill summary, an earlier amendment, and the final passed text are treated as interchangeable. These questions help separate the political description from the operative law.

1. Which version are you quoting? Earlier Assembly language contained materially different penalties and provisions from the final S.9629 text passed by both houses.
2. Are you relying on the public summary or the amended statute? The summary still speaks in terms of minors and prohibited persons; the operative amendment deletes the household trigger from § 265.45.
3. Has the Governor signed it? Passed legislation is not current law until enactment and the applicable effective date.
4. What changes for a responsible adult living alone? That example reveals the true breadth of the proposed universal duty.
5. How does the proposal differ from the D.C. rule in Heller? The differences matter, but so does the shared question of practical defensive availability.
6. What historical analogues will New York rely on after Bruen? A policy objective is not itself the constitutional test.
7. What narrower options were considered? Ask whether lawmakers evaluated clear rapid-access safe harbors, defined terms, targeted risk categories, education, civil remedies, or other alternatives before choosing a universal criminal mandate.

If the Goal Is Safety, Why Not Draft a Law That Clearly Fits Heller?

The hardest criticism of Francesco's Law is not that lawmakers care about children. It is that the Legislature chose a universal criminal mandate without clearly defining the defensive-access boundary that Heller made constitutionally important.

A more careful approach could focus on demonstrated unauthorized-access risks, provide a clear safe harbor for rapid-access defensive storage, define "immediate possession or control," distinguish civil education from criminal punishment, and commission transparent data before expanding penalties. It could preserve exceptions for unlawful entry and lawful self-defense while ensuring those exceptions are usable in practice rather than only after arrest.

That would not end every disagreement. It would show constitutional stewardship: pursuing a legitimate safety objective while consciously drafting around a Supreme Court holding rather than leaving citizens and taxpayers to fund the answer later.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is Francesco's Law currently in effect?

No. It passed both houses on June 2, 2026, but as of the July 25, 2026 review date NY Safe Inc. found no official evidence that it had been signed. The core penal-law changes would take effect ninety days after becoming law.

What would Francesco's Law change?

It would remove the current household limitation from Penal Law § 265.45. Every owner or custodian would have to lock or disable a firearm whenever it is outside that person's immediate possession or control, regardless of whether a minor or prohibited person lives in the home.

Which bill version does this article analyze?

The final S.9629 text passed by both houses on June 2, 2026. Earlier versions, including A.1962-B, contained materially different penalty and education provisions. Quoting an earlier amendment as though it were the final passed text can produce an inaccurate description of the bill.

Does current New York law require every home firearm to be locked at all times?

No. Current statewide § 265.45 imposes its home-storage mandate when the owner resides with a minor or specified prohibited person. Other statewide vehicle rules and additional local laws may apply. Owners should verify the law governing their location.

Did the Supreme Court ban all safe-storage laws in Heller?

No. Heller invalidated the District of Columbia's rule because it made lawful firearms unavailable for immediate self-defense in the home. The Court did not announce that every storage measure is unconstitutional.

Has a court ruled that Francesco's Law violates the Second Amendment?

No. It has not yet become effective law, and no court has decided its constitutionality. This article identifies the constitutional issue created by the relationship between the bill's universal mandate and Heller's defensive-access holding.

Would a quick-access safe necessarily violate Heller?

Not necessarily. The analysis would depend on the law's text, the storage method, the degree of delay, enforcement, available exceptions, and the historical-tradition evidence offered by the State. A court would examine the actual burden, not merely the label "safe storage."

What does "immediate possession or control" mean?

The phrase already appears in current § 265.45, but the statute does not provide a scenario-by-scenario definition. S.9629 would make its meaning important to every owner. Questions involving sleeping, moving between rooms, rapid-access storage, distance, physical limitations, and emergency access could depend on future enforcement guidance or judicial interpretation.

Does research support safe-storage laws?

Yes, with important limits. RAND's 2026 systematic review found supportive evidence that child-access prevention or safe-storage laws reduce several firearm-injury outcomes among youth. That supports preventing unauthorized child access. It does not by itself establish the marginal benefit or constitutionality of extending New York's existing household-triggered rule to every adult owner.

Could taxpayers pay the challengers' legal fees?

Potentially, but only in the proper type of case. In a qualifying federal civil-rights action, 42 U.S.C. § 1988 permits a court to award reasonable fees to a prevailing plaintiff. Fees are not automatic and do not attach to every state-court or administrative challenge.

What should New York firearm owners do now?

Follow current law, any stricter local rules, and prudent safety practices. Do not treat a pending constitutional argument as permission to ignore an existing statute. Owners with fact-specific questions should consult a qualified New York attorney.

The Question Is Bigger Than Storage

Francesco's Law begins with a devastating loss and a legitimate public concern. But constitutional government requires more than identifying a worthy purpose. It requires lawmakers to work within boundaries the Supreme Court has already articulated.

Heller did not tell states to ignore child safety. It told government that a storage mandate may not destroy the practical ability to use a lawful firearm for immediate self-defense in the home. Bruen later instructed courts not to rescue firearm restrictions through free-form policy balancing.

The question is no longer whether New York values safe storage. The question is whether, nearly eighteen years after Heller, the State has chosen a path that again requires courts to decide whether constitutional rights remain practically usable inside the home.

That answer is not yet known. The statutory expansion, the constitutional boundary, and the public cost of resolving the conflict are now part of the same policy decision.

Source Library

• New York Penal Law § 265.45 — current text
• New York Penal Law § 265.46 — current text
• Francesco's Law — S.9629 official bill page and text
• A.1962-B — earlier Assembly amendment (different provisions; use for version history)
• Francesco's Law — New York Assembly print bill
• District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)
• New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022)
• 42 U.S.C. § 1988 — attorney's fees in civil-rights actions
• RAND, The Science of Gun Policy, Fifth Edition (2026)

Further Reading from NY Safe Inc.

New York Castle Doctrine: How to Legally Protect Your Home

New York Self-Defense Laws: The Version Movies Don't Show

The Beccaria Trap: When the State Restricts Protection but Cannot Guarantee It

The Second Amendment Legal Domino Effect in New York

Learn the Law. Store Responsibly. Prepare Conservatively.

NY Safe Inc. teaches New York's required 16+2 concealed-carry course with an emphasis on safe handling, secure storage, de-escalation, judgment, and the legal realities faced by civilians — not police officers.

View the New York 16+2 CCW Class

Not ready to book a class? Schedule a free consultation to talk through storage, licensing, or carry questions first.