Leave it to Democrats both nationally and locally to fan the flames against the Supreme Court for its striking down of New York’s century-old law restricting the carrying of concealed firearms.

At a time where some conservative justices on the high court have had threats again property and life, for Democrats to use triggering language to spur on further protests before the court rules on the future of Roe v. Wade is looking for further trouble.

Mayor Eric Adams called the Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision “appalling,” saying, “There is no place in the nation that this decision affects as much as New York City.”

Gov. Kathy Hochul described the court’s decision Thursday as “not just reckless,” but “reprehensible” and “frightful in its scope.”

President Biden said in a statement that he was “deeply disappointed” in the ruling, saying it “contradicts both common sense and the Constitution, and should deeply trouble us all.”

“I call on Americans across the country to make their voices heard on gun safety,” the president said. “Lives are on the line.”

Here’s where the Dems argument falls flat in NYC. All the gun violence is perpetrated by criminals using illegal firearms. This ruling does not make those guns legal. It does not allow them to carry a weapon.

This ruling states that law-abiding citizens be allowed to carry state-registered firearms with proper licensing in public.

If anything, this law may have criminals thinking twice about pulling a gun in Times Square or on a Sunday morning train traveling over the Manhattan Bridge.

The ruling will do nothing about taking illegal guns off the street, which Democrats have done a woeful job at, but it may cause some criminals to think twice before brandishing a firearm in some areas of the city.

In his dissent, retiring Justice Stephen Breyer cited the toll of gun violence, writing: “Since the start of this year alone (2022), there have already been 277 reported mass shootings—an average of more than one per day.”

In a concurring opinion, Justice Samuel Alito responded directly to Breyer, writing: “Does the dissent think that laws like New York’s prevent or deter such atrocities? Will a person bent on carrying out a mass shooting be stopped if he knows that it is illegal to carry a handgun outside the home?

“And how does the dissent account for the fact that one of the mass shootings … took place in Buffalo?” Alito went on. “The New York law at issue in this case obviously did not stop that perpetrator.”