Democrats from President Biden to Gov. Kathy Hochul to Kevan Abrahams, the leader of Nassau County’s Minority Legislature, were both quick and right to condemn the U.S. Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision last Thursday to overturn a century-old New York law that placed strict restrictions on carrying concealed firearms in public.

Abrahams described the decision as a “shocking blow” to the state’s gun safety framework.

“We are especially concerned about how the increased number of concealed firearms will make it even more dangerous for law enforcement professionals to do their jobs and protect the public,” Abrahams said in a statement.

Suffice to say, New Yorkers endangered by the Supreme Court’s decision include everyone else – from shoppers to commuters to people attending a movie.

Yes, store owners will have the right to tell customers that firearms are prohibited – just as they had the right to require people to wear masks during the height of COVID. But who exactly is going to enforce that ban?

New York City Mayor Eric Adams, at a news conference, correctly said the decision decreased overall safety throughout New York’s communities.

“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,” Adams said.

Michael Dowling, the president and CEO of Northwell Health, joined the Democrats in slamming  the decision, agreeing with Hochul’s description of the ruling as a “reckless and reprehensible decision.”

“I look forward to the work that [Hochul] and our legislative leaders are now undertaking to determine New York’s best, most effective response. Northwell Health stands ready to support these efforts in whatever ways are necessary,” said Dowling, who has called gun violence a public health emergency.

Hochul said Thursday she would call a special legislative session as soon as July and outlined proposals that could let the state maintain some of the nation’s most restrictive gun laws. Democratic leaders in the Legislature promised to work with the governor.

Justice Clarence Thomas’s majority opinion made clear that the constitutionality of restrictions is historically “settled” in “sensitive places,” such as legislatures, courtrooms and polling locations, and that “modern regulations” may “prohibit” the carrying of firearms in “new” places.

Though Thomas did not specify other places, several justices said during oral arguments in November that might include public transportation, crowded venues, university campuses and places where alcohol is served 

Those locations offer the bare minimum of what ought to be included in New York’s new legislation.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh noted in a concurrence joined by Chief Justice John Roberts that while states may not impose restrictions that prevent “ordinary, law-abiding citizens” from carrying a gun to defend themselves, states can still enact rigorous requirements for a public carry permit, such as stringent background and mental health records checks and completion of regular training courses.

Permitting “ordinary, law-abiding citizens” is problematic on its face given that not all people who have committed violent crimes have been caught and the fact that everyone who was convicted of a violent crime was “law abiding” before their first conviction.

But the justices did give New York the OK to enact rigorous requirements for a public carry permit, such as stringent background and mental health records checks and completion of training courses

New York lawmakers should implement those requirements immediately.

They should also require gun owners to possess firearm liability insurance for all gun owners.

Not only would such a requirement ensure that victims of gun violence could be compensated for their losses, firearm liability insurance would provide financial incentives for responsible arms carrying as well as storage at home.

Surely, a state that requires insurance for car owners should require insurance for gun owners.

But opposition to the Supreme Court’s decision – and possible legislative responses to the legislation – were not universal.

Republicans running for governor in New York and gun lobbyists led by the NRA applauded the U.S. Supreme Court, calling it a win for gun owners in the Empire State.

“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,” said a statement from Rep. Lee Zeldin (R-N.Y.), the leading Republican candidate for governor.

Andrew Giuliani, the son of former Mayor Rudy Giuliani and a Republican candidate for governor, said the court “protected the rights of law-abiding New Yorkers to protect themselves.”

And Nick Langworthy, state GOP party chairman and an upstate candidate, said the decision was “a ruling for the people over the politicians.”

A recent Siena College poll found that 79% of New Yorkers wanted to see the Supreme Court uphold the decades-old concealed-carry law.

The poll offers a remedy to those opposing sensible gun regulations in the face of a gun-violence pandemic – voting against all those standing in the way of public safety.

One person virtually missing from the debate was Nassau County Executive Bruce Blakeman.

Blakeman said he personally believes 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.”

This non-response was odd for several reasons.

One is Blakeman’s staunch support of Zeldin, who came out strongly in favor of the Supreme Court’s decision.

Another is that Blakeman serves as the Nassau County Republican Party’s liaison to the Trump presidential campaign. Trump’s three extremist justices helped provide the majority overturning New York’s law.

And still another is the focus of Blakeman and other country Republicans during the recent Nassau election campaign on what they claimed was an increase in guns being fired in Nassau and crime across the state, which they blamed on bail reform.

The claim worked. Nassau County Republicans swept the four countywide elective offices in November’s elections, including for county executive and district attorney.

Since being elected county executive, Blakeman has been a leader of those seeking the repeal of what they have called cashless bail. This has included joining a dozen GOP leaders at the state Capitol to blast Democrats and paint New York’s bail laws as a boon for repeat offenders.

So why is Blakeman equivocating now?

Another oddity is Nassau County’s failure to release county crime comparisons with the same period last year until recently.

This was the first time the information so important to evaluating safety in Nassau was released since October 2021 when Laura Curran was county executive. And the statistics were quarterly and only covered  January to March.

By contrast, New York City announces its numbers monthly with its last disclosure showing May crime statistics.

The delay in releasing the crime statistics may not be so odd given what they show – a 75% increase in violent crime in the first three months of 2022 when Blakeman was county executive compared to 2021 when Curran was county executive.

What is also odd is the inexplicable silence of Democratic county legislators in response to Nassau’s failure to disclose its crime statistics.

This is not the time for public officials to go silent on county crime statistics or needed changes to state law. Lives depend on it.