New York Court Strikes Several ‘Emergency’ Anti-Gun Infringements

Unconstitutional Law Justice Trial Judge Ruling iStock-gorodenkoff 1346156698
On November 7, 2022, one day prior to the mid-term elections, Judge Glenn T. Suddaby issued his decision about a preliminary injunction in the Antonyuk v. Hochul case.  iStock-gorodenkoff

U.S.A.-(– On November 7, 2022, one day prior to the mid-term elections, Judge Glenn T. Suddaby issued his decision about a preliminary injunction in the Antonyuk v. Hochul case. The case challenged the carry law of New York, passed as an emergency measure in response to the Bruen decision by the Supreme Court of the United States. This decision is relatively quick, as court decisions go. The case was filed on September 22, 2022, as the second attempt by the plaintiff to challenge the law.

Judge Suddaby’s order for a preliminary injunction is a significant win for those who support the rights protected by the Second Amendment.

The preliminary injunction refines the list from the previous Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) by Suddaby, published on October 6. Some changes were made.

The preliminary injunction, issued on 7 November, is more detailed. It goes into effect immediately. Barring a reversal by an appeals court, it will not change until the case is concluded.

In dealing with the long list of “sensitive places,” Judge Suddaby found the plaintiffs did not have standing for several. The places where the plaintiffs lack standing were not considered in the preliminary injunction.

They may be argued in another case. The ban on carrying in these places continues pending litigation. They are:

p. 24: “[A]ny place owned or under the control of federal, state or local government, for the purpose of government administration, including courts.” 

p. 35  libraries

p. 45 -47:  “[T]he location of any program … that provides services to children, youth, … any legally exempt childcare provider …”

p. 47-48:  summer camp

p. 50:  “[T]he location of any program … regulated, … operated, or funded by the office for people with developmental disabilities”

p. 50-51  “[T]he location of any program … regulated, … operated, or funded by [the] office of addiction services and supports”

p. 51-52:  “[T]he location of any program … regulated, … operated, or funded by the office of mental health”

p. 52:  “[T]he location of any program … regulated, … operated, or funded by the office of temporary and disability assistance”

p. 53 – 54:  “[H]omeless shelters, … family shelters, … domestic violence shelters, and emergency shelters”

p. 54-55:  “[R]esidential settings licensed, certified, regulated, funded, or operated by the department of health” 

p. 55-57, other than “school districts”: “[A]ny building or grounds… of any educational institutions, colleges … , school districts … , private schools …”

P. 57-63 the paragraph considered is:

[A]ny place, conveyance, or vehicle used for public transportation or public transit, subway cars, train cars, buses, ferries, railroad, omnibus, marine or aviation transportation; or any facility used for or in connection with service in the transportation of passengers, airports, train stations, subway and rail stations, and bus terminals …

Judge Suddaby  includes buses (or vans), “aviation transport” and “airports” but leaves the rest intact for lack of standing,

Several “sensitive places” have standing to be challenged in the bill. Judge Suddaby’s preliminary prohibits enforcement in these areas, pending the litigation. Those areas, where carry with a permit will be considered legal are:

[A]ny location providing . . . behavioral health, or chemical dependance care or services” “[A]ny place of worship or religious observation”

public parks, and zoos

“[A]viation transportation,” “airports” and “buses (if following federal law)

“[A]ny establishment issued a license for on premise consumption pursuant to article four, four-A, five, or six of the alcoholic beverage control law where alcohol is consumed” 

“[T]heaters,” “conference centers,” and “banquet halls”“[A]ny gathering of individuals to collectively express their constitutional rights to protest or assemble” 

Prohibition in “Restricted Locations (essentially all private property, without express signage allowing the carry of arms)

These “sensitive” areas, where standing was found, are allowed to remain, pending the litigation:

[P]ublic playgrounds 

“[N]ursery schools [ and preschools”

In the preliminary injunction, these application requirements are struck down, pending the litigation:

Good moral character requirement

List of family and cohabitants

List Social Media Accounts for the past three years

“Such Other Information Required by the Licensing Officer that is Reasonably Necessary and Related to the Review of the Licensing Application- enforcement not allowed pending the litigation

These application requirements are allowed to remain pending the litigation:

Four character references

Eighteen Hours of Firearm Training

In-Person Meeting (the in-person meeting finding was reversed from the TRO)

The preliminary injunction is a significant blow to the emergency statute signed by Governor Hochul. The long list of “sensitive places” without standing will not be considered in this case, and are likely to be subjects of another lawsuit.

Those “sensitive places” and application requirements which are allowed to continue, are still subject to argumentation during the case.

Opinion: This correspondent believes the list of “sensitive places” (gun free zones) which are ruled to be unconstitutional, will grow.

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

Notify of
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Among the egregious, I find, is the requirement for “character references” Since when must one seek approval from others to exercise a basic right, when authorities already vet an applicant for possible criminal background?


If I recall another Ammoland article from a few days ago, neighboring N.J. requires that your character references know you for at least 3 years. I would never move to N.J. anyway but putting 2A rights on hold for over 3 years for a new resident is crazy and must be unconstitutional.


My personal issue with this is the persons who know me best and would surely vouch for me as for honesty and rectitude, happen to be “liberal Dems” whom I’d rather keep out of the loop. Gun ownership should be a private matter.


That’s also the problem with red flag laws where one is subject to firearm confiscation because some accuser is pissed off, cranky or having a bad day.


Often politics resembles more a sports contest with team loyalty the major motivation as opposed to pursuing commonality of values.

Watch um

The words sensitive places sounds like a goof ball sissy speaking, sorry Clarence Thomas but those words are stupid.

As a honest American veteran who has never been arrested or accused of a crime it is my constitutional right to bear arms period.

Why should I be pre-judged and restricted of those constitutional rights with such dumb usage of the words sensitive places


Exactly he created a loophole where none was needed for the antis.


What is the rationale for creating gun free zones? Most, if not all, malls in America are gun free zones where mass shooters go. They almost always end when a good guy violates the mall policy and ends the shooter as recently happened in an Indiana mall where shooter killed 3 and injured two, but a legally armed citizen ended the shooter within two minutes. Even the mall owners praised the young man who violated their gun free zone policy.

Last edited 29 days ago by Bob