The Saratoga Springs city council chose on Tuesday to again delay a vote on a proposal intended to keep guns away from the city’s nightlife.
The council tabled a vote on Public Safety Commissioner Jim Montagnino’s proposal that would penalize people carrying firearms while under the influence.
The ordinance has been discussed by the all-Democrat council for months, following an early-morning shootout on Broadway in November. That incident, involving an off-duty Rutland, Vermont Sheriff’s deputy, has prompted city officials to do more to prevent violence in the city’s bustling downtown nightclub district.
Montagnino says it’s intended to keep residents and tourists safe.
“They understood that their judgment would be impaired or likely be impaired by alcohol to a degree that they were not safe to drive. But they didn't stop to think that the smarter thing to do would be to take their weapon, put it in a safe at home, safely locked away before going out drinking. So, the idea of the ordinance is not for our police department to go around, seeking to enforce it on a regular basis, but rather for the public to be made aware that you can't mix alcohol and firearms. That's really the goal.”
An alternate version of the ordinance had been drafted by city attorney Tony Izzo to more closely match existing state legislation, but Izzo says that was not the version presented to city councilors Tuesday night.
“I did include in that draft a somewhat different version of the concept of carrying firearms while in an intoxicated state. It differs somewhat from Commissioner Montagnino’s only because of my own opinion that wherever we should, we should try and incorporate state terminology and state concepts into our own municipal ordinances.”
The revisions came at the request of councilors who shared concerns over the constitutionality of the ordinance as well as the potential for stop and frisks from city police.
Commissioner of Public Works Jason Golub told his fellow council members he wants to ensure that this legislation does not lead to unwarranted targeting of Caroline Street patrons.
“So, I have trouble understanding the enforcement process. So, maybe have it as a piggyback provision and outline the enforcement process so that our police aren't put in a situation where they're accused of stopping and frisking people, targeting people, and that our citizens don't feel that they're being targeted, or identified because of whatever reason.”
Responding to a Supreme Court ruling striking down the state’s century-old restriction on the concealed carrying of guns, New York Governor Kathy Hochul signed a suite of laws in 2022 that outlined “sensitive locations” where it would be illegal to concealed carry—including bars and restaurants that serve alcohol. The language of the local ordinance would reflect that legislation, outlining procedures on how or when to apply the ordinance.
Violators could be charged up to $2,500 per shot fired, as well as having their permits suspended or revoked.
While he agrees with the ordinance in principle, Mayor Ron Kim says he wants to get the legislation right before it’s voted on.
“What you don't want is to publish a law that is support you think is going to do what it's what it's intended to do, which is essentially stop any kind of gun violence, or even carrying a gun while people are drinking. You want to make sure that the law works, and it's effective. And that's what we're trying to do. So, it's just a process of maybe taking one step back, and we'll get it right the next time.”
Kim also supports other public safety measures like closing the city’s downtown bar scene at 2 a.m., which has been discussed for years but has not come to fruition. Under state law, cities cannot unilaterally roll back hours for bars and restaurants.
Montagnino does not think the ordinance will lead to unconstitutional stops and seizures. The Democrat says he’s willing to continue updating the language of the ordinance before a final version is voted on.
“We don't want to see a situation where in a party city like ours, just because someone's stumbling down the street. Now, there's a pretext for a stop and encounter a frisk or pat down, and so on. So I certainly understand the concerns of some of our other council members for that. And, as I mentioned, we can either have something in the ordinance itself or something in the policy manual that says, this is not a standalone kind of thing, that it would be piggybacked on something else unless there's an independent report from a private citizen or from some other source, or if an officer actually sees the weapon involved in the possession of the individual.”
The council is set to discuss the ordinance again next month.
