The Discrimination Playbook Behind “Progressive” Gun Control

Receipt 1

The Fourteenth Amendment's armed-self-defense history is not a footnote.

After the Civil War, disarmament was one of the tools southern legislatures and private terror networks used to keep freedmen defenseless. In McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), the Supreme Court traced the post-Civil War link between the right to keep and bear arms, Black citizenship, and protection against state and private violence.

Why it matters: The Second Amendment's modern relevance is not about hunting or hobbies. Its incorporation against the states runs directly through the era when disarmament was used as a tool of racial control.

Receipt 2

New York's Sullivan Act was born in an era of anti-immigrant panic.

The 1911 Sullivan Act created New York's discretionary handgun licensing model. Petitioners and an amicus brief from Italo-American jurists in Bruen argued the law was driven in significant part by public panic over crime attributed to Italian immigrants on the Lower East Side. Historians genuinely disagree over exactly how central that motive was to the bill's sponsor. What is not seriously disputed is the structure the law created: broad, effectively unreviewable police discretion over who was “suitable” to be licensed.

Why it matters: A law does not need to name a group to disarm one. It only needs to hand an official discretion and let context do the rest.

Receipt 3

“Proper cause” turned a right into a government permission slip.

In New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), the Supreme Court rejected New York's requirement that ordinary citizens prove a special need before carrying a handgun in public for self-defense, applying a text-and-history framework rather than open-ended interest balancing.

Why it matters: A constitutional right cannot depend on convincing a government official that your life is more worth protecting than everyone else's.

Receipt 4

New York's gun-possession enforcement has a documented racial-impact problem.

The Bronx Defenders, Brooklyn Defender Services, and Black Attorneys of Legal Aid told the Supreme Court in a sworn Bruen amicus brief that, according to NYPD's own data, 96% of people arrested in New York City for unlicensed gun possession in 2020 were Black or Latino — a share that had held above 90% for 13 consecutive years. The public defenders who filed that brief later wrote that the ruling striking down “proper cause” was, in their words, a step toward ending mass incarceration of their clients.

Why it matters: This statistic did not come from a gun-rights group. It came from public defenders representing the people actually being prosecuted — and it should trouble anyone who claims to care about disparate impact.

“If a law's enforcement falls overwhelmingly on poor Black and Latino New Yorkers, calling it ‘common sense’ does not end the civil-rights analysis. It begins it.”

Receipt 5

Christian v. James rejected New York's private-property “opt-in” rule.

In Christian v. James, Nos. 24-2847 & 25-384 (2d Cir. May 18, 2026), the Second Circuit affirmed a permanent injunction against New York's Private Property Provision as applied to private property open to the general public.

Why it matters: New York cannot make ordinary public commerce a default gun-free zone and then call licensed carry meaningful. Read our full breakdown in Christian v. James: New York's Carry Discrimination Is Exposed.

Receipt 6

Circuit Judge Menashi called out disapproval of the right itself.

Judge Menashi's separate opinion in Christian warned that a law covering nearly all private property open to the public looked less like a location-specific safety rule and more like official disapproval of armed self-defense as such.

Why it matters: Government may regulate the exercise of a right. It may not use regulation as a proxy for disliking the right.

Receipt 7

Wolford v. Lopez rejected a Black Codes-era law as constitutional evidence.

In Wolford v. Lopez, 609 U.S. ___ (2026), No. 24-1046, decided June 25, 2026, the Supreme Court struck down Hawaii's default rule requiring express permission to carry on private property open to the public. Hawaii relied in part on an 1865 Louisiana law enacted as part of the Black Codes. The Court rejected that analogue as a “tainted artifact” that could not seriously illuminate the original understanding of the right to keep and bear arms. New York's private-property defense had also invoked the same 1865 Louisiana law in Christian, where the Second Circuit refused to treat it as meaningful evidence of a neutral national tradition.

Why it matters: If you want to use history to justify restricting a constitutional right, you have to own the full history — including the parts written to keep freed Black citizens defenseless. Full analysis: Wolford v. Lopez: Supreme Court Kills the Vampire Rule.

“If the historical analogue used to defend a modern gun law comes from the Black Codes, the problem is not history and tradition. The problem is which history the state wants to preserve.”

Receipt 8

Hemani rejected status-based disarmament without proof of dangerousness.

In United States v. Hemani, 608 U.S. ___ (2026), No. 24-1234, decided June 18, 2026, Justice Gorsuch wrote for a seven-Justice majority in a unanimous judgment holding that the government could not sustain Mr. Hemani's prosecution under § 922(g)(3) based on admitted marijuana use without individualized proof that his use rendered him dangerous or that marijuana use always renders users dangerous. Justices Alito and Kagan concurred only in the judgment.

Why it matters: Belonging to a disfavored category is not proof of dangerousness. A system that presumes guilt from status rather than conduct has abandoned the presumption of innocence — whatever else it calls itself.

Receipt 9

NRA v. Vullo showed gun control can become a censorship problem.

In National Rifle Association of America v. Vullo, 602 U.S. 175 (2024), No. 22-842, the Supreme Court unanimously (9-0) held, in an opinion by Justice Sotomayor, that the NRA plausibly alleged a First Amendment violation where a New York financial regulator pressured banks and insurers to cut ties with the group over its advocacy. The Court vacated and remanded the case for further proceedings; on remand, the Second Circuit later found the official was entitled to qualified immunity, so the underlying claims did not proceed to a merits victory for the NRA. The First Amendment holding itself stands.

Why it matters: If a state official can pressure banks to blacklist a gun-rights group over its viewpoint, the same playbook works against environmental, religious, labor, or reproductive-rights groups next. Civil libertarians across the spectrum should find that alarming regardless of which advocacy group is targeted.

Receipt 10

Police protection is not a constitutional guarantee to any individual.

In Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005), the Supreme Court held that even the holder of an active restraining order had no constitutionally protected property interest in police enforcement of that order.

Why it matters: A state cannot disarm citizens, disclaim any individual duty to protect them, and then treat “call 911” as a complete substitute for the right to immediate self-defense.

“The case against discrimination cannot stop at the door of the Second Amendment. If discretion is unacceptable everywhere else, it is unacceptable here too.”

— Peter Ticali, NY Safe Inc.

“Discretion is where discrimination hides. A law does not need a target's name printed on it if an official gets to decide who is suitable.”

“A right does not become safer because government turns it into a privilege that has to be re-earned every time someone applies.”

“Status is not dangerousness, stigma is not evidence, and a category is not a conviction. Due process exists precisely so government has to prove its case instead of assuming it.”

What was the Sullivan Act?

The Sullivan Act is New York's 1911 handgun licensing law, one of the earliest and most influential statewide concealed-carry licensing statutes in the country. It gave local police officials broad discretion to decide who was “suitable” to receive a license — a standard with no fixed criteria, which meant two similarly situated applicants in different precincts, or different eras, could receive very different answers. For more than a century, that discretionary structure was the foundation of New York's approach to firearm licensing, and pieces of it persisted right up until NYSRPA v. Bruen in 2022.

What is Bruen?

New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), is the Supreme Court decision that struck down New York's requirement that an applicant show “proper cause” — a special, individualized need — before receiving a license to carry a handgun in public. In place of the open-ended balancing tests lower courts had been using, the Court adopted a text-and-history framework: a modern gun law is constitutional only if it is consistent with the historical tradition of firearm regulation in the United States. Every major case discussed in this article — Christian, Hemani, Wolford — applies that framework.

What is the “Vampire Rule” and why did Wolford strike it down?

The “vampire rule” is the nickname for a default rule — used by Hawaii and, in a related form, New York — that treats private property open to the public as off-limits to licensed carriers unless the owner affirmatively invites them in, the same way a vampire in folklore cannot cross a threshold without an invitation. In Wolford v. Lopez, 609 U.S. ___ (2026), the Supreme Court struck Hawaii's version down, rejecting the state's reliance on an 1865 Louisiana Black Codes law as a historical analogue and calling it a “tainted artifact” that could not establish a legitimate constitutional tradition.

Is New York's gun licensing system racially discriminatory today?

Modern New York gun law does not use racial language or explicitly target any group. The documented pattern is different: NYPD's own arrest data showed roughly 96% of people arrested for unlicensed gun possession in 2020 were Black or Latino, and public defenders representing those clients argued the licensing system's structure — fees, discretion, and geography — produces that outcome without needing to name anyone.

Did the Sullivan Act really target Italian immigrants?

Historians disagree on how central that motive was compared to Tammany Hall politics and general crime panic. What is well documented and not seriously disputed is the structure the 1911 law created: broad, largely unreviewable police discretion to grant or deny a license. That structure, not any single legislator's stated intent, is the lasting concern.

What did Bruen actually change about New York carry law?

NYSRPA v. Bruen (2022) struck down New York's requirement that applicants show a special need, or “proper cause,” before receiving a concealed carry license, and replaced open-ended interest-balancing with a text-and-history framework for evaluating gun laws. New York still requires a license and imposes other conditions that remain subject to ongoing litigation.

What is the “vampire rule” that Wolford v. Lopez struck down?

It is the nickname for a default rule that treats private property open to the public as gun-free unless the owner affirmatively invites licensed carriers in — like a vampire needing to be invited across the threshold. The Supreme Court struck this default down in Hawaii's version of the rule on June 25, 2026, in a decision with direct implications for New York's own private-property carry provisions.

Is modern New York gun control the same thing as Jim Crow-era laws?

No, and NY Safe Inc. is not claiming that. Modern law does not contain racial language. The argument is narrower and, we believe, stronger: some of the historical laws New York and other states have cited in court to justify modern restrictions were themselves written to disarm freed Black citizens, and courts are now refusing to treat that history as legitimate precedent. Separately, modern enforcement produces a racially disparate outcome even without racial language in the statute. Those are two related but distinct claims, and both are documented above.

Why would public defenders and gun-rights groups agree on anything?

Because they were describing the same clients from different directions. Public defenders see the enforcement side: who actually gets arrested, prosecuted, and incarcerated. Second Amendment advocates see the licensing side: who gets denied before they ever touch a courtroom. When both groups point at the same discretionary machinery and reach the same conclusion, that convergence is itself informative.

Does NY Safe Inc. oppose all gun regulation?

No. NY Safe Inc. trains civilians to carry lawfully and safely, and supports regulation grounded in individualized dangerousness rather than category or default suspicion — the same distinction the Supreme Court drew in Hemani and Rahimi. The objection here is to discretionary, fee-based, and default-ban mechanisms that have a documented history of falling hardest on the people least equipped to fight back in court.

What should I do if I believe I was unfairly denied a carry permit?

Document the denial in writing, request the specific statutory basis in writing, and consult a licensed New York attorney about your appeal rights under Penal Law § 400.00. This article is legal and historical commentary, not legal advice, and New York firearms law changes quickly.