I understand this may be a novel argument but at the same time this is a brand new type of law/ordinance which will likely require a novel argument.
I don't think it actually is a new argument, just a new way of describing or looking at a long established situation.
First point, I make a distinction between what I consider the "moral" (or if you prefer "ethical") responsibility, and the legal responsibility. We generally feel they ought to be the same, but often, they are not.
I just don’t see how a state and or a business can forbid a law abiding citizen from carrying there legal choice for self defense and not legally be obligated to provide for your security/safety
The answer is simple, but you won't like it. If there is no law requiring them to provide for your security/safety, then they are simply not legally obligated to do so. Once again the difference between what we feel they ought to do and what the law actually requires.
"traditionally" there were two places where legal firearms carry was prohibited, bars and banks. Not sure about banks anymore, but I know that rule is still in place for bars /places serving alcohol. There are posted signs specifically stating that, and (in my state, at least) include language specifically stating they prohibit permit holders from carrying in that location.
What we are looking at here, with the new NYS law is an expansion of this, to a HUGE range of places they are identifying as "sensitive" (essentially any place people gather) and its being done in a very unilateral manner, with damn little (if any) discussion in the legislature and as far as I can tell, NO public input on the decision.
Historically, private property, even when open to the public, was still private property, and the state had limits on what it could impose without the owner's permission, AND the owner was free to impose their own restrictions on behavior if they chose to.
Leave aside, for a moment the specific quirks of NY state /NYC and look at it in general. If there is no blanket state law prohibition, the property owner could post a "no guns" sign, if they chose. And, if they did, and you broke their rule, they could require you to leave. You haven't broken any law but you did break their rules, and they are entirely within their rights to ask/order you to leave.
IF you don't comply, THEN you ARE breaking a law, and can be escorted off by the cops, and even arrested and charged with trespassing.
A property owner who allows private carry doesn't need to post a sign saying that, (though they could, if they wanted to) I don't know of anyplace that is required to post a sign saying "you can obey the law here...."
Except, possibly now, NY.
What the new NY law does is designate a new, broad range of places (no doubt with the ability to easily expand the list) as "gun free zones" and their list includes a lot of privately owned establishments (including places of religious worship) without any regard for the wishes of the people who own those properties.
That is the basis for some of the legal challenges, particularly from some religious groups. It's not just a matter of your right to carry, its also a matter of their right to make the call on their property. What the new NY law does with its list of sensitive places is REMOVE that RIGHT from the owners of the property. And, yes, that IS a big deal, and should be!
Then there's a more nuanced question. I understand your argument: "If I would normally carry in your establishment but you don't allow me to do so, then you assume the responsibility for keeping me as safe as I would have done for myself." But this is New York state, where only a tiny percentage of people have carry permits. How is a business owner supposed to know which of his/her customers are the people with carry permits and who do actually carry regularly? Because under your argument, those are the ONLY customers who should be eligible for any special protection. Should confirmed anti-gun customers, who never have and never will carry a firearm, receive the same level of protection as those customers who are deprived of their right to carry by this law and the business's failure to post a "Concealed Carry Allowed" sign?
AB, I think you're "off target" with this one.
The principle has nothing to do with NY, the percentage of people who have permits or actually do carry or what the business knows or doesn't about them. That's irrelevant. The business is either
legally responsible for protecting everyone on their premises, or they are not. And this brings us right back to the difference between existing law and what we feel is "right".
Its a mess, for sure, and like all gun control, is based on the false assumption that a law about what you can have, where will prevent crime.
