When the six Republican-appointed Supreme Court justices ruled in June to overturn New York State’s century-old law strictly limiting carrying guns outside the home, Democratic officials throughout Nassau and the state slammed the decision.

The Democrats said the ruling, which came just days after mass shootings in Buffalo and Uvalde, Texas, was a threat to public safety.

“Today’s Supreme Court decision may have opened an additional river that is going to feed the sea of gun violence in our city and in our nation,” New York City Mayor Eric Adams said.

Adams had launched a campaign at the time to remove guns from the streets of New York in response to shootings and gun fatalities in the city.

This seemed like a logical response to the problem. Fewer guns would mean fewer shootings. This formula appeared to work as both shootings and gun fatalities – if not overall crime – declined in the city.

In September, New York City showed a 23.5% decline in murder over 2021 and a 13.2% decline in shootings.

Nassau County Executive Bruce Blakeman was more non-committal following the Supreme Court’s decision.

Blakeman said he personally believed in every American having the right to bear arms but said “reasonable restrictions” are important as well.

“I want to see what the restrictions are, what the guidelines are and then we’ll act accordingly,” Blakeman said. “We have a great Police Department and our Pistol License Bureau will be on top of this and the county attorney will give me the guidance that I need to be able to make sure we keep ourselves safe and at the same time follow what was decided by the Supreme Court.”

Led by Gov. Kathy Hochul, the state approved legislation that requires firearm training, in-person interviews and reviews of applicants’ social media.

It also prohibits those with concealed carry permits from carrying weapons in sensitive places such as Times Square, schools, government offices and hospitals.

These seem like reasonable steps.

As Justice Stephen Breyer wrote in his dissent in June, “In 2020, 45,222 Americans were killed by firearms. Since the start of this year, there have been 277 reported mass shootings – an average of more than one per day. Gun violence has now surpassed motor vehicle crashes as the leading cause among children and adolescents.”

But on the eve of a decision challenging New York’s legislation, Blakeman appeared to drop his support for the state’s sensible approach, calling the law “arbitrary, capricious and unconstitutional.”

Blakeman specifically said he disagreed with forbidding gun owners from bringing their weapons inside houses of worship or on public transportation.

Given the number of shootings at religious institutions around the country and concerns about public safety in places like the New York City subways, this seemed odd after Blakeman’s complaints about the “state of lawlessness” in New York.

Does the county executive really believe that we will be safer if the person sitting next to us in the subway or the next pew is armed with a gun?

If so, why limit the right to carry guns anywhere?

Still, Blakeman’s comments seem to echo the Republican-appointed Supreme Court justices who wrote the court’s decision.

Justice Clarence Thomas, who wrote the majority decision, said states were free to ban guns in sensitive places, giving a few examples: schools, government buildings, legislative assemblies, polling places and courthouses.

But Thomas cautioned that “expanding the category of ‘sensitive places’ simply to all places of public congregation that are not isolated from law enforcement defines the category of ‘sensitive places’ far too broadly.”

We would very much like to hear why there is a need to ban guns in courthouses but not movie houses, supermarkets or other scenes of mass shootings.

And why states have been handed unlimited discretion in writing abortion laws, but not gun laws — Second Amendment or no Second Amendment.

But that is another discussion.

Blakeman’s comments do appear to bring Blakeman more in line with U.S. Rep. Lee Zeldin (R-Shirley), the Republican candidate for governor and his political ally who has made public safety a centerpiece of his campaign.

Zeldin lauded the Supreme Court’s ruling at the time, saying that the previous framework was an attack on the Constitution’s Second Amendment.

“The Supreme Court’s decision marks a historic, proper, and necessary victory for law-abiding citizens of New York, whose Second Amendment rights have been under constant attack,” Zeldin said in a statement. “It reaffirms their inherent right to safely and securely carry to protect themselves, their families and their loved ones, and the principle that this Constitutional right shall not be infringed.”

In this case, Zeldin was going even beyond the Republican-appointed justices on the Supreme Court by saying the right to carry guns is absolute or as he said “shall not be infringed.”

This is not something any Supreme Court Justice has said.

As then-Justice Antoin Scalia wrote in a prior landmark decision, “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.”

Further, it is not “a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

We say this just a day after two teenagers were wounded in a shooting outside Zeldin’s home in Shirley that frightened his two teenage daughters.

Zeldin said his daughters ran upstairs, locked themselves in the bathroom and immediately called 911. The authorities said there was no connection between the shooting and the Zeldin family.

We express our sincere regrets to Zeldin and any other parent whose children were subjected to such a traumatic event.

The shooting followed a ruling by a federal judge in Syracuse who supported Blakeman’s constitutional concerns with the state’s new gun law if not the actual specifics.

U.S. District Judge Glenn Suddaby halted key provisions of the law, saying licensing requirements — like a rule requiring applicants to turn over information about their social media accounts — went too far.

Not allowing a review of social media accounts as part of a background review appears to fly in the face of nearly every mass shooting we have seen in recent years. In almost all the incidents the shooter discussed their plans on social media accounts in advance.

Suddaby’s ruling would keep restrictions in place that bar firearms from being carried into schools, government buildings and places of worship.

But for other sensitive locations, such as Times Square, the judge said we are on our own.

There is no question that the crime rate, including murder, is too high in New York, but New York has actually been well served by its strict guns law in the past compared to other states and is doing no worse than other states in a rise in crime.

Don’t believe us? Check the national crime rates, particularly homicides.

You would think New York is at the top based on the political rhetoric. But national crime statistics paint a much different picture.

According to the worldpopulationreview.com, New York ranks 34^th in homicides per 100,000 people in 2020.

At the bottom? Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont?

At the top? Mississippi, Louisiana and Alabama?

Guess who has stricter gun laws?

Blakeman rode to victory in November 2021 by focusing on crime. Other Republican candidates across New York are now trying to do the same.

But advocating for greater access to firearms will only make the problem worse, not better.