GOA Files New Case Against New York’s CCIA

GOA Files New Case Against New York's CCIA, iStock-697763642
GOA Files New Case Against New York’s CCIA, iStock-697763642

SYRACUSE, NY -(Ammoland.com)- Gun Owners of America is back in court, challenging New York’s Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA).

The CCIA was passed shortly after the Supreme Court knocked down New York’s “proper cause” statute in New York Pistol Rifle Association v. Bruen. In the decision, written by Justice Clarence Thomas, SCOTUS confirmed an individual’s right to carry a firearm outside the home for protection. All states effectively became “shall issue.”

The opinion also stated that states could designate certain areas as “sensitive,” such as government buildings and schools, but the designation must be used sparingly. The court notes that the sensitive area designation could not be applied to an area just because people gather there.

New York State then declared much of the State as a “sensitive area,” including Time Square, because people gather there. The State also replaced the “proper cause” clause with a “good moral character” clause, which required applicants to turn over all their social media to New York State officials for review. The State could use any post to disqualify a person from getting a concealed weapons permit.

In many ways, people with unrestricted concealed carry permits lost rights after Bruen. Since all businesses had to post signs allowing concealed carry, going to a gas station or a store with your gun could make you a felon. Churches could no longer have security details or let their pastors carry firearms. New York seemed to be thumbing its nose at SCOTUS.

This new lawsuit is the second time GOA has challenged the CCIA. Last month GOA lost its challenge to the CCIA in Antonyuk v Bruen. Although the judge found the law unconstitutional, he stated that GOA’s plaintiff, Ivan Antonyuk, had no intention of breaking the law and therefore did not have standing. Mr. Antonyuk was basically too law-abiding.

This time GOA is going back into court with multiple plaintiffs that have the courage to state that they are willing to break the law. One such plaintiff is a church pastor with a concealed carry permit and is willing to carry during services despite the CCIA.

Another plaintiff lives in a small town surrounded by the Catskill Park. To leave the town, the man must traverse the park. The CCIA basically disarms him. Since the CCIA makes all parks “sensitive areas,” he cannot leave his town with his firearms without committing a felony.

Another plaintiff, a grandfather of five, is planning a trip to Tennessee. He wants to take his gun with him. If he was to check it, it is legal to fly with a firearm under federal regulations, but the CCIA makes it illegal to bring a gun to the airport even if it is locked and unloaded.

An avid hiker signed onto the case. The hiker carries his firearm while hiking in the New York woods for protection from wild animals such as bears. The CCIA attempts to disarm him while carrying during his excursions.

GOA is asking for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and injunctive relief against the new law. If the TRO were to be issued, the law would not be enforceable. The judge has already stated that he believes the law to be unconstitutional, and all GOA was missing was plaintiffs willing to say they plan on violating the law. Now GOA has those plaintiffs.

Several other cases are challenging the CCIA. The NYSPRA v. Bruen 2 case has been filed in the Northern District of New York, but the lawsuit has been assigned to an Obama appointee. The other is the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) case in the Western District. That case was narrowly tailored to attack certain aspects of the “sensitive areas” listed in the CCIA.

A TRO is usually issued fast, so we should know something in the coming days.

About John Crump

John is a NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed people of all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons and can be followed on Twitter at @crumpyss, or at www.crumpy.com.

John Crump

Notify of
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Your talent for the understated “New York seemed to be thumbing its nose at SCOTUS” is amazing! Keep it up.


seemed to be..hummm scotus needs to put these people in cell for contempt and forget about them for twenty or thirty years


the left does things that the right wont dare to do:

act on its agenda


Boredonsight: l can’t let myself give you a thumbs up, but you are right.


As always,
Politicians with laws never stop bad guys with guns.
They only control the good guys, which is their true agenda.

. “That is why our masters in Washington are so anxious to disarm us. They are not afraid of criminals. They are afraid of a populace which cannot be subdued by tyrants. ” – the late Col Jeff Cooper, USMC, founder of Gunsite Academy

Gun control to a Patriot is hitting the intended target. To politicians, gun control is denying a constitutional right to a citizen


Are you in StL and what range(s) do you shoot at? I usually go to an MDC range but sometimes shoot at The Range St. Louis West or Ultimate Defense, occasionally at Gateway and I used to shoot skeet in Pacific..


DIYinSTL… Have you heard anything back from Discover Card yet ?


Yes. I received an e-mail on the 21st. The respondent gave me his name, phone number and office hours and wrote: “Thank you for your recent correspondence to Discover®. To ensure your concerns are properly addressed, your correspondence has been forwarded to my attention at the Executive Office of Customer Advocacy within Discover.   I am currently in the process of investigating your concerns. A detailed response will be sent to you upon completion of my investigation.” Just a moment ago I forwarded to him a link to the ammoland article on this subject posted today – the one with… Read more »


DIYinSTL…Thanks !

Last edited 10 days ago by Oldvet
Wild Bill

Outstanding work


So I hear it took 7 years to get Bruin. NY reacts with a FAR more restrictive system, denying ALL carry. . . . unless you are an active or retired cop, of course, then your rights “shall not be infringed”. AT ALL – EVEN THE NY SAFE ACT DOESN’T APPLY! We had a chance for this law to be enjoined, but this is NY, even though the judge clearly stated that this law was blatantly UNCONSTITUTIONAL, THE FIX WAS IN, he found a way to let the blatantly unconstitutional law stand. Lack of “standing”, OK. Legal scholars opined, yeah,… Read more »


I hate what you are saying but I see the same future for Oregoneistan under the same circumstances. A judge found that the new measure 114 is not unconstitutional because our constitution says we have a right to vote for the Oregon we want. Another section says that the government shall not have control over the people’s right to protect themselves and shall be secondary to the people, in layman’s terms. I understand the judges point of view legally but do not agree with his decision. Unfortunately, if it does pass, I see the implementation taking place almost immediately and… Read more »


hope judge says nice try ,now let me tell you what new york law is now no gun restrictions….none open cart in streets and all public buildings …stays that way till you bring realistic proposals to the table..then enjoin them from making any gun laws


SOMEONE ask about the Freedom card . I just saw a commercial on the tube advertising it . It pictured the card upper left corner it showed FREEDOM lower right corner VISA . Hope that helps .