Next, Respondents claim that the district court’s injunction, preventing New York from banning law-abiding persons with carry licenses from carrying in ordinary “locations such as bars, restaurants, [and] theaters” somehow will “increase[e] the risk of intentional or inadvertent shooting deaths or injuries.” Opp. at 33. But to count this as a “harm” to the state would require the Court to conclude that the mere exercise of Second Amendment rights by licensed, law-abiding persons in public is a public “harm.” On the contrary, “[t]he Second Amendment is the very product of an 17 interest balancing by the people” (Heller at 635), and their conclusion was that the bearing of arms by “the people” is beneficial to “the security of a free state.” See McDonald at 783 (“[t]he right to keep and bear arms ... is not the only constitutional right that has controversial public safety implications.”). Simply put, more law- abiding people peaceably carrying firearms is not a detriment to public safety, and certainly not sufficient to support the Second Circuit’s stay. Indeed, if this were a valid concern, New York long ago would have made carrying by licensed persons illegal in the locations the CCIA now declares off limits, rather than waiting to enact this ban to punish gun owners for having prevailed in Bruen.