New York Senate Bill S00234

New York 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/8/25
• Refer: 1/8/25
• Refer: 1/7/26

Caption

Exempts retired judges from the crime of criminal possession of a firearm, rifle or shotgun in a sensitive location.

Summary

This bill amends New York Penal Law section 265.01-e, which defines exceptions to the crime of criminal possession of a firearm, rifle, or shotgun in a sensitive location. It adds a new exemption for retired judges who are duly licensed to possess a pistol or revolver under section 400.00 of the Penal Law. The covered retired judges include former judges of the Court of Appeals, Supreme Court, Court of Claims, County Court, Surrogate’s Court, Family Court, New York City courts, District Court, and city courts outside New York City. Under the bill, those retired judges would not be subject to the sensitive-location firearms prohibition while in the circumstances covered by the new exemption. The bill takes effect immediately and would therefore change the scope of the existing sensitive-location restrictions as soon as enacted, without altering the underlying licensing requirements for handgun possession.

Impact

The bill would narrow the reach of Penal Law section 265.01-e by creating an additional statutory exception to the sensitive-location firearms offense. It would specifically affect retired judges who hold a valid pistol or revolver license, allowing them to possess firearms in locations that would otherwise be prohibited under the sensitive-location law. The measure does not change general licensing law, but it does modify who may lawfully carry or possess firearms in sensitive places under state criminal law.

Sentiment

Based on the bill text and available context, the measure appears to be framed as a targeted carveout rather than a broad firearms policy change. There is no recorded committee transcript or vote history in the provided materials, so no formal debate or recorded sentiment is available. The caption suggests the sponsor’s intent is to extend an exemption to a specific class of former judicial officers, indicating a limited and specialized policy approach.

Contention

The main point of contention is likely to be whether retired judges should receive a special exemption from sensitive-location firearms restrictions when other licensed individuals remain subject to them. Supporters would likely argue that retired judges have unique security concerns and public responsibilities that justify the carveout, while opponents may view it as an unequal exception that weakens the consistency of sensitive-location rules. Because no committee discussion or votes are provided, the specific positions of legislators or stakeholders are not documented in the available record.