Republicans say they will sue New York over a new gun control law, claiming it will prevent New Yorkers from exercising their Second Amendment rights in the wake of a June 23 Supreme Court ruling that overturned a state law as unconstitutionally strict.

A New York Republican party spokesman tells the Sun that the party is in consultation with lawyers now and is seeking to have the legislation, enacted Friday, thrown out in its entirety.

“This bill they just passed is a gross infringement on New Yorker’s rights and makes us all less safe,” the New York GOP chairman, Nick Langworthy, said. “I’m going to sue them again and we’re going to win again.” 

The law in question acts to replace New York’s Sullivan Law, which was struck down by the Supreme Court after remaining in place for over a century.

The new law replaces New York’s concealed carry permitting process, creates a list of “sensitive locations” where carrying is not allowed, and tweaks storage regulations and background checks.

The new permitting scheme requires applicants to meet with a licensing officer for an in person interview to determine the “character and trustworthiness” of an individual.

Applicants will also be required to disclose the names of anyone that they live with, including partners or minors, in addition to providings at least four character references. Applicants must list social media accounts they have had for the last three years.

Last, applicants will be required to show that they have completed the required training and certify that they do not have any convictions that would preclude them from carrying a gun.

The “sensitive locations” portion of the new law references a regulatory system in which guns will not be allowed in certain areas even for New Yorkers with a permit to carry a concealed weapon. 

These areas include government buildings, hospitals, nursing homes, schools, playgrounds, stadiums, and public transportation facilities, among others.

While Republicans plan to challenge the entire law, the Supreme Court did give its blessing to sensitive area gun regulations, suggesting that it may stand a better chance of surviving a lawsuit.

In the opinion of the court, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that there is a historical precedent for banning guns in “sensitive places” — like courthouses or government buildings — and that “modern regulations prohibiting the carry of firearms in new and analogous sensitive places are constitutionally permissible.”

He added, as a demonstration of the limits of such regulations, that “there is no historical basis for New York to effectively declare the island of Manhattan a ‘sensitive place.’”

While Republicans consult with lawyers on how to challenge the law, the governor and her legal advisors remain confident that the new regulation will hold up in court.

A lawyer for Ms. Hochul, Elizabeth Fine, argues that the new law respects the limits set by the recent court decision, noting that “the moral character standard was not an issue in the Supreme Court, and it’s been issued in other states.”

The “moral character” standard references the new process, requiring a review of social media and character references. Some gun rights advocates have expressed concerns over the new rule.

“What is being proposed in New York is a violation of Second Amendment rights, but they are also asking you to sign away your privacy rights for social media accounts, signing away your First Amendment rights,” National Shooting Sports Foundation spokesman Mark Liva said.

The governor’s office, however, insists that the new law is well within the limits set by the Supreme Court and will be applied consistently across the state.

“I don’t think there is a question that the state has the authority and the responsibility to review applicants for licenses to make sure that they are not going to pose a danger to themselves if they are able to get a gun,” Ms. Fine said.

The previous lawsuit took issue with the fact that the standards for deciding who did and did not receive a concealed carry permit were inconsistent across the state. 

“We are trying to create uniformity, which is what really the Supreme Court asked us to do,” Senator Andrea Stewart-Cousins, the majority leader, said. “People will be very clear about how they can go about getting a permit.”

Under the old law, New York State’s Sullivan Act, the application process varied widely across the state in part because the applicant was required to demonstrate a “proper cause” for obtaining a concealed carry permit.

Generally, they had to show that they had a specific reason for needing a concealed carry permit above and beyond the general purpose of self defense. Whether they demonstrated a proper cause was largely up to the local licensing officer.

In the decision last week, the court ruled that Second Amendment rights, like first amendment rights, should not require a proper cause to exercise, striking down this sort of law.

Since the decision, California has followed suit, moving to abandon its old regulation and adopt a “good moral character” type of regulation. Even with these changes, New York Republicans argue that the new law would violate the Second Amendment rights of New Yorkers.

“Albany Democrats are choosing to go after the rights of law-abiding citizens, rather than the criminals who commit horrific acts of violence,” the minority leader in the Senate at Albany, Robb Ortt, said.