GOA’s Win Knocks Down Most of New York’s Concealed Carry Law

New York Gun Flag iStock-884181314
GOA’s Win Knocks Down Most of New York’s Concealed Carry Law IMG iStock-884181314

SYRACUSE, NY. -(Ammoland.com)- A judge in New York’s Northern District issued a temporary restraining order (TRO), knocking down most of the state’s Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA).

Gun Owners of America (GOA) teamed up with Ukrainian immigrant Ivan Antonyuk over the summer to prevent the CCIA from going into effect in Antonyuk v. Bruen. Judge Glenn Suddaby ruled that the CCIA was unconstitutional, but since Mr. Antonyuk did not intend to break the law, he lacked standing to sue.

The latest case became known as Antonyuk v. Hochul. This time GOA sued a slew of new people, including New York Governor Kathy Hochul. Mr. Antonyuk and GOA then found other plaintiffs that did intend to violate the CCIA and refiled and asked for a TRO. The courts have held that if a law is unconstitutional, citizens are under no duty to follow it.

Although the judge let certain aspects of the CCIA stand, most of the law was restrained. The judge followed the road map set by Bruen and ruled based on the actual text and history of the Second Amendment.

The first target of the judge was “good moral character.” Before Bruen, New York had a “proper cause” clause that allowed the state to reject concealed carry applications. The landmark Supreme Court decision knocked down the clause. Many people saw “good moral character” as a substitute for “proper cause” to allow the state to reject any concealed carry applications it chose to deny. The judge agreed and restrained the clause.

The judge let the character reference requirement stand but knocked down the requirement to turn over three years of social media history. Attorneys for the plaintiffs argued that this requirement not only violated the plaintiffs’ Second Amendment rights, but it also violated their First Amendment rights to free speech. The judge agreed with this assessment and restrained the provision.

Also, the judge restrained a provision that required the applicant to turn over who lives with them. New York State wanted to check the backgrounds of all other adults before issuing a concealed carry permit. That means that if your roommate had a checkered past, you would also lose your right to a concealed carry permit. Judge Suddaby found the provision to be constitutionally dubious.

The judge let the “Such Other Information Required by the Licensing Officer” provision stand for now. Although he was not wholly comfortable with it, he felt that if he restrained it, the licensing officials could not follow up on questions about personal information and other minor questions. The judge let the state know he did have reservations about the provision.

The judge let the training requirement stand. The CCIA requires sixteen hours of classroom training and two hours of live fire training. GOA argued that the requirement put an unnecessary burden on the plaintiffs. However, the judge struck down the in-person interview, alleviating the applicants’ burden.

A big part of the case centered around the state’s designated sensitive areas. Judge Suddaby knocked down most of the provisions but did let some stand.

Suddaby also asked New York to modify the restrictions surrounding the banning of guns in churches and other religious buildings. In that case, he asked the state to carve out an exception for those on official duty, such as a pastor or other church employee.

The judge let the provision stand that banned guns in places controlled by federal, state, or local government. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas did say some places could be “sensitive areas,” and it seems like Judge Suddaby believed these locations fell within the Supreme Court’s opinion. He also believes that polling places and public areas restricted from general public access for a limited time by a government entity fell within these exceptions.

Some other places where he believed the government could restrict firearms were public transportation, such as buses and subways, and schools, such as colleges and universities. Guns on college campuses have been at the center of debate for years. At least for now, the state can ban guns in these places.

New York State also tried to ban guns anywhere alcohol is served, which included restaurants, movie theaters, sporting events, and concerts. The judge restrained the law from preventing concealed carry holders from entering those establishments which open much of the state to gun owners.

The CCIA famously banned firearms in Time Square. SCOTUS said that the government could not ban guns just because a place is where people gather. New York then banned guns in Time Square because it was where people gathered. This provision was the most blatant attack on the Bruen decision. The judge had no issue restraining the ban.

All other sensitive areas were knocked down. These places include homeless shelters, doctors’ offices, counseling centers, and a slew of other sites. New York’s vast list of sensitive areas got a lot smaller.

The judge also restrained the “restrictive area” provision of the law. This provision said a business was a “gun free zone” unless that business posted a sign allowing concealed firearm carrying. This provision would make it impossible to go to a grocery store or gas station. The judge said that this provision violated gun rights and property rights.

GOA celebrated the victory. Senior Vice President Eric Pratt believes that the judge gave New Yorkers the ability to defend themselves.

“Anti-gunners like Kathy Hochul and Eric Adams lied and misrepresented the Second Amendment to the courts, putting New Yorkers at a great disadvantage in the midst of rising crime,” Pratt said. “We are grateful to Judge Suddaby for his quick action to restore the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Once the TRO goes into effect, GOA encourages New Yorkers to exercise their rights and to defend themselves and the ones they love.”

Although the judge did issue a temporary restraining order, the battle is not over. GOA is still seeking a preliminary and permanent injunction against the law. Three other cases in the New York federal court system that takes on the CCIA are currently active.


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

Subscribe
Notify of
25 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
3%er

GOA is just doing what the former NRA never could, never would.

Wild Bill

And may God bless every GOA staffer and member!!!

Terry

And may the NRA get their head out of their rectum and FIRE WAYNE!

gregs

ouch, i bet yokul houchul and her ilk’s faces are smarting for getting b…. slapped by that judge.
common sense and anyone with a single functioning brain cell could have told you that this “law” was unconstitutional. but hey, dictators gonna be dictators.

totbs

I doubt that she’ll be deterred. Most likely she’s been working on a backup restrictions plan since instituting the current one. It’s high time elected officials faced financial and or incarceration penalties for blatant violations of constitutional rights. As it stands, there’s no deterrence for this unlawful behavior, so this stuff never ends.

gsteele

That’s the difference between the Left and the Right; the Right believes that the citizens decide what the government can do; the Left believes that the government decides what the citizens can do. That has never worked in the history of mankind to promote freedom; whereas the Right’s belief has led to the rise of the most powerful country in the history of the world, with the greatest freedom in history. That’s why people don’t try to sneak into Russia across its border, but we have a flood of illegals.

CourageousLion

We have a flood of illegals because they get to suck the Aunt Samantha tit and get free everything that you have to work your ass off for.

CourageousLion

Bitch needs charged under this: TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242 Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, … shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon,… Read more »

Trussman

It seems to me that the people in power are going to do as they want, until they get told, sometimes years later, that they can’t do what they want. They thumb their noses at the Supreme Court, but if we don’t do as they say, we end up in jail. There needs to be some equal justice for them. Houchul signs into law, something that she knows is against the constitution, yet there is no punishment for her. She not only violated the constitution, she flipped the bird at the Supreme Court just weeks after their decision. New Yorkers… Read more »

Bubba

New Yorkers get what they vote for…

Fed-Up

But do you really think this time NY will follow the law? Give me a break….

gsteele

Just what is it that makes it so difficult for these elected officials like Hochul and Adams to manage their responsibilities in a way compliant with the Constitution and the rulings of the Supreme Court? If they can’t see a way to do their job in compliance with the rules, they don’t belong in office! Get them out and put someone with some skill and creativity in their place, who can see what is needed to achieve the desired end of public safety without putting handcuffs and a muzzle on the honest citizen. They need to GO!

Montana454Casull

It appear tyrant Hochul can eat a turd , the court has ruled bitch ! New Yorkers win and criminals lose and you can suck a purple donkey lollipop.

shadowcaster504

“If a law is unjust, a man is not only right          
    to disobey it, he is obligated to do so.”
                   Thomas Jefferson

CourageousLion

One thing I love about Fascistbook is how they totally ignore reason, logic and common sense responses to idiots that post idiotic comments. I went to that Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (never had any of my guns commit gun violence) and commented on some Karen’s post. I said that IF, you know that word that means IF, I decided to rape you there would be NOTHING you could do to stop me. With 16 years of martial arts experience and two 2nd degree black belts in two different styles, as well as being 6’4″ tall and 250 pounds and… Read more »

Desert Guy

Where is “Time Square”? To be credible we need to be accurate in all things. If not, everything we say will be discredited by the opposition.

Green Mtn. Boy

What wasn’t overturned will be when it is appealed by Cruella Deville and her Marxist cronies.

fireball4

I thought she was the Queen of Michigan.

KK

Since the classroom and live fire training requirement stands, maybe Hochul could up the hours from 16 + 2 to something like a full semester of classes and another semester of live fire training upping the cost to something like $12,000 and then require it every three years. This would REALLY keep NY’ers “SAFE” and would prove how much she is REALLY COMMITTED to stopping the “GUN VIOLENCE EPIDEMIC”, because she plainly stated that this “CCIA” has been passed solely to STOP THE “GUN VIOLENCE EPIDEMIC”!!! Again, tell me, how much of the “GUN VIOLENCE EPIDEMIC” is being committed by… Read more »

KK

Some of this seems backwards. I read it to mean that NYS could NOT restrict carry on public transportation: (5) the “sensitive locations” provision contained in Section 4 of the CCIA EXCEPT with regard to the following sensitive locations (where the restrictions remain): (a) “any place owned or under the control of federal, state or local government, for the purpose of government administration, including courts” (as contained in paragraph “2(a)” of Section 4); (b) “any location being used as a polling place” (as contained in paragraph “2(q)” of Section 4); (c) “any public sidewalk or other public area restricted from… Read more »

Last edited 1 month ago by KK
Laddyboy

Considering the “federal government” OWNS NO PROPERTY, it is only ON LOAN, this means there is no restrictions of carrying on federal grounds!!

Wild Bill

What makes you think that the “federal government” owns no property?

Rowboat

The government owns ALL the property! You just rent it from them in the form of property taxes . Try not paying your “property rent “ and see how fast the government foreclosure takes “ your” property.
My ancestors who fought in the American Revolution were paid in land after the war by the government. Later ancestors who fought against the government in the Civil War were stripped of that very same “land payment” and given piecemeal to former slaves without recompense.
Who owns the land indeed!

CourageousLion

You are 100% correct. Check this out, comment and pass it around. https://courageouslion380.substack.com/p/communism-american-style