Federal Court: New York Gun Law is Unconstitutional

New York Gun Flag iStock-884181314
New York is an anti-gun dystopia. IMG iStock-884181314

U.S.A.-(AmmoLand.com)-– On October 6, 2022, Judge Glenn T. Suddaby issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO)to prevent New York State from enforcing the new infringements on the exercise of Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms.

The restraining order was issued after the first lawsuit by Plaintiff failed on August 1, for lack of standing. A new lawsuit remedying that condition was filed on September 22 of, 2022. The new lawsuit contained the proper conditions for standing.

Judge Suddaby found New York State substituted one unconstitutional infringement for another. From the opinion:

However, instead, the 21 CCIA expressly prohibits the issuance of a license unless the licensing officer finds (meaning unless the applicant persuades him or her through providing much information, including “such other information required by review of the licensing application that is reasonably necessary and related to the review of the licensing application”) that the applicant is of “good moral character,” which involves undefined assessments of “temperament,” “judgment” and “[]trust[].” Setting aside the subjective nature of these assessments, shouldering an applicant with the burden of showing that he or she is of such “good moral character” (in the face of a de facto presumption that he or she isnot) is akin to shouldering an applicant with the burden of showing that he or she has a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community, which is prohibited under NYSRPA. In essence, New York State has replaced its requirement that an applicant show a special need for self-protection with its requirement that the applicant rebut the presumption that he or she is a danger to himself or herself, while retaining (and even expanding) the open-ended discretion afforded to its licensing officers.

The Judge expanded on how the State of New York failed to show its new infringements met historical standards by showing how the requirement for character references law lack historical analogs.  Judge Suddaby mentioned, in passing, there are no historical analogs requiring a responsible, law-abiding citizen to apply for a permit to carry a gun. From the opinion:

The Court begins its analysis of this provision by acknowledging the apparent dearth of historical analogues requiring a responsible, law-abiding citizen to provide character references in order to be permitted to carry a gun.22 However, just as lacking, it appears, are historical analogues requiring a responsible, law-abiding citizen to even apply to be able to carry a gun.

The Judge allowed, for now, pending the actual arguments, these requirements to temporarily apply:

  • 16 hours of training, including two hours of live fire;
  • No “in person” meeting may be required;
  • The broad list of “sensitive places” was rejected, the below  areas may be argued in the case:
    • government buildings,
    • polling places
    • places of worship with an exception for those how have a duty to protect (private parties explicitly asked to protect),
    • public areas restricted from general public access for a limited time by a Government Entity where a permit has been granted, with clear and conspicuous signage.
    • schools
    • fenced in farmland or hunting preserves.

Places summarily rejected as sensitive include:

  • public transportation
  • private property
  • places of entertainment or amusement (including where alcohol is served)
  • Times Square

Judge Suddaby rejected the concept the State of New York could require private property owners to ban firearms on their property *unless* they put up a sign saying “firearms are allowed”. He noted the State of New York was making their decision for the private property owners, and rejected that provision in the new law. He wrote it appeared to be a First Amendment violation.

The Judge found the balance of equities favored the Plaintiffs, against the State of New York, and there would be irreparable harm if no restraining order were put in place. He found the public interest was not disserved by the temporary restraining order.

With three business days to file an appeal, the State of New York is expected to appeal the temporary restraining order on Monday, October 10, 2022, to the Federal Second Circuit Court of Appeals.


About Dean Weingarten:

Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of Constitutional Carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.

Dean Weingarten

Subscribe
Notify of
12 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Green Mtn. Boy

News Flash
Each and every gun control law is repugnant to the Constitution,end of story.

DIYinSTL

New York: “The [Evil] Empire State.”

KK

Yup.
And after Bruen – we are now living in the sequel.
THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK!

Darkman

Ban on guns with serial numbers removed is unconstitutional -U.S. judge | Reuters
https://www.reuters.com/legal/ban-guns-with-serial-numbers-removed-is-unconstitutional-us-judge-2022-10-13/

Montana454Casull

I love it when a 80 % becomes a 100 percent functional. FJB

DDS

There are two classes of firearms without serial numbers. One would be those who never had a serial number in the first place. The other would be those which have had their serial numbers removed. Any law that addresses serial number requirements would have to allow for those differences and any number of others. Like is the serial number missing because a criminal wanted to render the firearm untracable or because it was buffed off while the firearm was being refinished. Then there’s one really big “but” that goes right to the question of the constitutionality of the serial number… Read more »

Watch um

I agree and any law passed in Congress is unconstitutional requiring serial numbers

Montana454Casull

Stock up on 80 % s and build several then. FJB

KK

Yeah, well, BIG DEAL! The 3 days to file an appeal resulted in the 2nd circuit PUTTING A STAY ON THE TRO! So, in NY – THE PLAINLY STATED UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAW REMAINS IN EFFECT! Or should I say, the plainly stated UNCONSTITUTIONAL FELONY TRAP REMAINS IN EFFECT! “THE FIX” is still in, welcome to NY! (City & county police departments sure are relieved! They are very happy and very used to being “THE ONLY ONES” to carry legally unrestricted. They are doing everything they can to keep the Bill of Rights a meaningless old piece of paper that doesn’t apply… Read more »

Last edited 3 months ago by KK
Bubba

No standing for an appeal. It’s a TRO. Technically not appealable. They can request a redress of the ruling in front of same judge. After that motion is handed down, then they can appeal.
I think…. Lol

PMinFl

The serial number argument is a canard in that firearms are not “traced” by law enforcement agencies until and unless a crime has been committed and a firearm is recovered……………..PERIOD

Bubba

If only that were still true. 🙁

Last edited 3 months ago by Bubba