See full article here:–blanket–new-york-city-as-a-gun-free-zone

By Anna Lucente Sterling

On the heels of the Supreme Court decision Thursday striking down New York’s concealed carry gun law, City Council Speaker Adrienne Adams urged Albany to essentially make New York City a gun-free zone.

Adams introduced a resolution that calls on the state to expand current definitions around “sensitive places” where the public is prohibited from carrying concealed guns, including using population density as a factor.

“Our proposed solution encourages the state to tailor a law that accounts for New York City’s high population density as a factor in establishing specific parameters for the designation of sensitive areas where legal firearms are prohibited from being carried by members of the public,” Adams said at a news conference Thursday afternoon.

The proposal for population density, which would be defined as 10,000 people per every square mile, could have large ramifications for a city like New York, according to lawmakers.

“Given the high density that characterizes most of New York City, we need to significantly limit the harm that this court decision could otherwise have on making our streets more reflective of an environment typical of the wild west,” Adams said.

The resolution also calls on state lawmakers to establish more places as “sensitive,” including  child care facilities, schools, financial institutions, theaters, libraries, mass transit and more.

“How can government protect their own spaces while leaving our children and families exposed to violence?” Councilman Shaun Abreu, chair of the Committee on State and Federal Legislation, said.

Adams also said that the council is looking into buffer zones, where guns would be prohibited within 1,000 feet of a “sensitive place.”

Lawmakers said the goal is to essentially make New York City a gun-free zone.

“That’s the hope. That’s the thought,” Adams said.

When asked about the potential constitutionality of the proposal, Adams said: “We’re actually still digesting the court decision. It gave us some examples of sensitive areas, but it really wasn’t exhaustive.”