PUBLIC DEFENDERS

More of the same

Public defenders urged the state Legislature to take a new approach to gun laws – and they were ignored.

By Peter Sterne

ON JUNE 23, the day that the U.S. Supreme Court struck down New York state’s strict gun control laws in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen, a coalition of public defender organizations released a joint statement calling on the state Legislature to craft new gun laws that would avoid the mistakes of the old ones.

“Gun regulation need not mean funneling low-income Black and brown people into the criminal legal system,” read the statement signed by The Bronx Defenders, Brooklyn Defender Services, Black Attorneys of Legal Aid and a handful of upstate county public defender organizations. “Today, we call on the Legislature to design new gun regulations that are rooted in equity, not racism and to address the mass criminalization and incarceration of people of color for unlicensed gun possession. We look forward to working with the Legislature to chart a new course in addressing gun violence – one that does not perpetuate racial discrimination and harm.”

The Legislature and Gov. Kathy Hochul did respond with sweeping new gun control legislation that was signed into law. However, it wasn’t what some public defenders and others were hoping for, prompting private complaints that the new laws did not respond to old concerns and would fuel mass incarceration.

The public defender groups had previously submitted an amicus brief to the court showing how the state’s century-old gun control law had led to the disproportionate incarceration of people of color. Once the law had been ruled unconstitutional, the public defenders hoped that the Legislature could craft a better law.

Following the court’s decision, Hochul called an extraordinary legislative session and the Legislature passed a new gun control bill. The bill changed the criteria for police to consider when granting concealed carry gun licenses. Previously, license applicants needed a “letter of good cause” showing a specific reason why they required a hidden gun. Now, applicants must demonstrate “good moral character” and complete firearms safety training.

The bill passed largely along party lines, with only eight Democrats – all Assembly members representing upstate districts – voting against it.

Officially, the public defender groups have not taken a position on the new gun control laws. But privately, some defenders and criminal justice reform advocates said the new gun laws had the same problems as the old ones.

M.K. Kaishian, a civil rights attorney who worked at Brooklyn Defender Services until leaving in January to start her own private practice, told City & State that the new gun control law doubles down on the state’s current arrest-based approach to gun regulation.

“Instead of going after manufacturers, all those other sort of top-level issues, continuing to focus on individual possession cases where the police are in charge of that enforcement just ensures that we’re going to continue to see the over-criminalization of Black and brown New Yorkers,” she said. “It’s just more of the same.”

Kaishian said the state’s gun control strategy was focused on making it next to impossible to get a gun license and then arresting as many people as possible for unlicensed gun possession. Like the old war on drugs campaign, this arrest-based approach to gun control disproportionately affected nonwhite people who lived in the most heavily-policed neighborhoods.

“Here in New York City, we have a pretrial jail population on a top charge of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree – which is possession of a gun without any requirement that it’s brandished, fired or otherwise used in a crime – and that population that is facing that as a top charge at Rikers Island and other city jails is 96 to 97% nonwhite, at least,” she said.

According to Kaishian, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree carries a mandatory minimum sentence of 3 and 1/2 years in prison and is considered a violent felony that is eligible for bail. The result is that people who are stopped and frisked by the New York City Police Department (most likely a disproportionate number of Black and brown men) and

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other representatives stand with pictures of shooting victims from Buffalo and Uvalde, Texas.

“Gun regulation need not mean funneling low-income Black and brown people into the criminal legal system.”

– Statement from a group of public defenders

found to be carrying an unlicensed gun will spend months at Rikers and years at an upstate prison.

Lisa Schreibersdorf, the founder and executive director of Brooklyn Defender Services, echoed some of Kaishian’s points while making it clear that her organization had not taken a formal position on the new gun laws.

“While most people in a rural community would not face a jail sentence for failing to license their gun, people of color living in urban areas are specifically targeted by police, prosecutors and the courts for harsh prison sentences, even where there is no evidence of possession with intent to use the gun unlawfully,” she said. “Whether any of us agree or disagree with the ruling, the Supreme Court has said there is a right to carry a firearm in the United States. That means that we cannot apply this rule differently based on a person’s identity or where they live.”

Schreibersdorf called on the state Legislature to consider the unintended consequences of the state’s gun control laws and the ways that they fueled mass incarceration.

“While we do not have a position on New York’s revamped gun regulations … it is worth noting that many people may end up in violation of these laws based on mistakes or other reasonable choices, such as bringing a registered gun from another state,” she added. “It is critical that the Legislature look at the punishments for failing to obtain a firearm license and create a plan that will meet the requirements of the Bruen case and rectify the long-standing injustice that has contributed to the disproportionate impact these laws have had on Black and brown men.”

The Legal Aid Society, Black Attorneys of Legal Aid, and The Bronx Defenders all declined to comment on the record when asked about the new gun control laws, instead referring back to their earlier statement on the Bruen decision.

Among the eight Democrats in the Legislature who voted against the bill was Assembly Majority Leader Crystal Peoples-Stokes, whose Buffalo district was recently the site of a racist mass shooting. She declined to discuss her vote on the record.

The other Democrats who voted against the bill – Assembly Members Marianne Buttenschon, William Conrad, Aileen Gunther, Pamela Hunter, Billy Jones, Al Stirpe and Carrie Woerner – also represent upstate districts.

Hunter, whose district includes part of Syracuse, told City & State that she voted against the bill because it was “a quick knee-jerk reaction to the Supreme Court ruling” that would not solve the underlying issue of gun violence.

“None of the provisions in this bill would have stopped the shootings in my community and the mass shootings we see every day,” she said in a statement. “I also believe this legislation would harm law-abiding gun owners, specifically minority gun owners. … We are addressing the Supreme Court decision in a way that too easily allows carriers in compliance to be subjected to felony charges and discriminatory enforcement.”

Still, this kind of skepticism toward gun control remains relatively rare within New York’s Democratic Party, particularly downstate. Even the most left-wing members of the party, who are generally in favor of criminal justice reform, ended up voting for the recent gun control bill.

The future of the state’s new gun control law is uncertain, though there’s a chance it will end up in front of the U.S. Supreme Court. If the court once again overturns New York’s gun control law, how will the Democrats react? Will they once again rush to enact the strictest possible law, or will they focus on gun control measures that involve less criminalization?

Kaishian said she believed that legislators, particularly those on the left flank of the Democratic Party, were increasingly open to considering alternatives to incarceration – even if their votes on the most recent gun control bill did not reflect that.

“Votes on the floor and whether they’re willing to have a conversation about it can be sometimes years apart, but those conversations are still very important, as long as people are willing to listen to them,” she said. ■ Peter Sterne is a journalist based in Queens who covers politics and the media.

Fighting back after losing Roe

How lawmakers and nonprofits are keeping abortion accessible.

By Phenix Kim

IN THE WEEKS SINCE the U.S Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, New York lawmakers and nonprofits have taken action to protect access to reproductive health care in the state.

After the court’s decision, Gov. Kathy Hochul said the state would spend $35 million to support abortion providers in New York, including $25 million for the state Health Department to create an Abortion Provider Support Fund to both expand capacity for providers and ensure access for patients. Another $10 million went to reproductive health care centers for security grants through the state Division of Criminal Justice Services.

“New York has always been at the forefront of the fight for abortion rights, and as the first female governor of New York, I will not let us go backwards. I will never stop fighting to make New York a safe harbor for all who need care and a blueprint for other states to follow,” Hochul said.

The first 13 programs to receive money from the fund covered 63 sites around the state. Participants already were part of the Comprehensive Family Planning and Reproductive Health Care Services Program, which provides family planning and reproductive health services to low-income, uninsured and underinsured people. The new fund is meant to improve the physical security of reproductive health care facilities, along with aid toward training of new staff members and clinicians. Hochul also launched a series of reproductive health care roundtables with providers to discuss their needs and experiences post-Roe.

Anticipating an influx of out-of-state patients seeking abortion care, reproductive health organizations, such as Planned Parenthood of Greater New York, told New York Nonprofit Media they were expanding services, both locally and nationwide.

Planned Parenthood of Greater New York announced a 20% increase in abortion appointment availability at its 23 health centers, in addition to having employees facilitate travel, lodging and secure funding for individuals who intend to travel to New York from states where abortion is no longer legal or has been greatly restricted.

New York state has put $35 million aside to support abortion providers in anticipation of more out of state patients.

“Anyone who believes that they are immune from the harmful effects of the loss of Roe v. Wade is simply fooling themselves.”

– Andrea Miller, National Institute for Reproductive Health president

Planned Parenthood also increased telehealth services for abortion pills for women in the early stages of pregnancy. Planned Parenthood plans to expand local services in the Southern Tier by including second trimester abortion care at health centers in Ithaca and Corning.

Advocacy groups like the National Institute for Reproductive Health, which works with state and local reproductive health organizations, pledged to increase efforts through partnerships with local grassroots programs and universities to ensure protections and funding for abortion providers in Republican-led states.

“Anyone who believes that they are immune from the harmful effects of the loss of Roe v. Wade is simply fooling themselves,” Andrea Miller, the institute’s president, told NYN Media. “This will have a dramatic impact on the health, well-being, and future of individuals, families, communities and our nation. It will not just be a ripple effect: It will be a tsunami effect.”

On July 1, the state Legislature passed a resolution that will prohibit “discrimination on the basis of race, color, ethnicity, national origin, disability, or sex including pregnancy and pregnancy outcomes, sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression.”

“State leaders have set in motion a bold process to shore up New York’s constitutional protections and enshrine the rights of people of all backgrounds. New York is acting to safeguard rights, meet the moment, and lead,” New York Civil Liberties Union Executive Director Donna Lieberman wrote in a statement.

The New York Women’s Foundation advocated for investing in pro-choice leaders who were from various racial and ethnic backgrounds, urging the need to care for “communities left out of the mainstream who typically fight to have access to safe abortion and care for their bodies,” said Ana Oliveira, the nonprofit’s president and CEO. “This decision to overthrow Roe v. Wade will penalize and further control and oppress women, especially women of color, poorer women, women with disabilities, trans and gender expansive people, younger women, immigrant women and survivors of gender-based violence.”

Elizabeth Estrada, New York field and advocacy manager at the National Latina Institute for Reproductive Justice, emphasized the challenges faced by Latinas, including migrants who have entered the U.S. without permission and face compounding financial barriers to reproductive health care: “Even in a progressive state like New York, many Latinas/xs and people of color face the same hurdles to access health care that we see across the country. Although Medicaid does cover abortion in New York state, some are struggling economically but are still not eligible for Medicaid, while some need to keep their abortion private from a coercive partner or a parent whose insurance coverage they share.”

Estrada added that migrants who entered the U.S. illegally “are scared to provide the personal information required on Medicaid applications for fear of exposing their immigration status.” She also emphasized the intersectionality of the challenges triggered by abortion restrictions, which extend beyond reproductive health care: “It remains clear that all families need access to essential health care, not more economic barriers or obstacles due to their immigration status, race or how much money they make. Abortion restrictions do not change the fact that everyone deserves access to care without stigma or barriers.”

The New York Abortion Access Fund, another nonprofit group, also has noted the disproportionate toll that Black, Latino, LGBTQ individuals, among other marginalized groups, will bear by the changes brought by the Supreme Court’s ruling. The fund and other providers said banning abortion ultimately exacerbates a legacy of racism and discrimination in the U.S. The fund stated in a release that it “continues to provide direct financial support to people impacted by abortion bans, restrictions, economic barriers, and stigma. We’re unapologetically here for people seeking abortion, and we’re not going anywhere.” ■