GOA Asks SCOTUS to Vacate the Second Circuit Stay in New York

GOA Files New Case Against New York's CCIA, iStock-697763642
GOA Asks SCOTUS to Vacate the Second Circuit Stay in New York, iStock-697763642

WASHINGTON, D.C. -(Ammoland.com)- Gun Owners of America (GOA) has filed an application with the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) to vacate the recent United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit stay on a District Court’s preliminary injunction against New York State’s Conceal Carry Improvement Act (CCIA).

GOA teamed up with multiple residents of the Empire State to sue Governor Hochul over the CCIA in Antonyuk v. Hochul. The gun rights group claimed that the law was unconstitutional and ran afoul of the landmark SCOTUS decision in New York State Pistol Rifle Association v. Bruen. A District Judge for the Western District of New York heard the case.

The plaintiffs argued that the law was Constitutionally flawed. One major issue was the “sensitive areas” aspect of the CCIA.

Although Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in Bruen that the state could designate certain areas as sensitive and ban guns, such as schools and government buildings, the designation had to be used sparingly. A state cannot establish a place as a sensitive area just because it is where people gather.

The CCIA made most of New York a sensitive area, including Time Square, because it is where people gather. Most places that were not considered sensitive were designated “restricted locations.” These locations included private businesses. Private businesses must post signs stating they allowed firearms, and they would be treated as “sensitive.”

Another issue the District Court deemed unconstitutional was the “good moral character” clause of the CCIA. Bruen knocked down the “proper cause” from the NY Safe Act, but New York State substituted the new phrase. This was a blatant attempt to work around the Bruen Decision. The concealed carry applicant must also give over three years of social media posts. The judge thought this violated the plaintiff’s First Amendment rights.

GOA initially won a temporary restraining order (TRO) against the CCIA, but Governor Hochul asked the Circuit Court to stay the order. The anti-gun Second Circuit ruled in favor of the Governor and issued an emergency stay. The Circuit Court wouldn’t get to hear arguments about the stay because the District Court would issue a preliminary injunction against the law.

Governor Hochul’s office asked the Second Circuit to issue an emergency stay until a three-judge panel from the Circuit Court could hear New York State’s appeal. Once again, the Circuit Court granted New York’s wish.

GOA is now asking the Supreme Court to step in and vacate the Second Circuit’s stay. Lawyers for the plaintiffs call the Second Circuit’s decision a “knee-jerk reaction.” They point out that the Second Circuit failed to provide any reasoned analysis as to why staying the Preliminary Injunction was the proper action. Most of all, the attorneys point out that the CCIA all but eliminated concealed carry in New York and was a direct response to the Bruen decision.

Erich Pratt, Senior Vice President for GOA, explained that the gun rights group sued New York State because it violated a SCOTUS ruling. He and the organization believe it is proper for the high court to step in and vacate the Circuit Court’s stay. Pratt said:

“Governor Hochul and state lawmakers wasted no time in passing legislation that completely contradicted the Bruen precedent, and we urge the High Court to once again hold the state accountable for violating the Second Amendment rights of their own citizens.”

Sam Paredes, on behalf of the Board of Directors for the Gun Owners Foundation, added:

“We have said it before, and we’ll say it again: states must come into compliance with Bruen, or we will make you.”

The plaintiffs, New York State, and gun owners will now have to wait and see how SCOTUS responds.

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
Joe R.

“The plaintiffs argued that the law was Constitutionally flawed. . .” the law is Declaration of Independence flawed. Per the Declaration of Independence, which cannot be amended or repealed and ranks as the first recited of our U.S. “Organic Laws” [https://uscode.house.gov/browse/frontmatter/organiclaws%26edition=prelim] no [U.S.] Government body can legally (or logically) regulate ANY means the U.S. Citizenry might employ to depose it, up to, and exceeding, PARITY of Arms, with said government (if said government does not choose to pack its/their shi7 and go home quietly if and when their fellow bona fide U.S. Citizenry instructs them to), per the 4th Enumerated… Read more »


dont need icbm when they just need to make beltway

Patriot Solutions

So really no jurisdiction is going by Bruen unless somebody has the cash on hand to hire Esquires and spend months or years in court on an individual case by case basis over each fake rule as it applies to each individual. An FFL I was dumping a dead Coyote full of holes with yesterday said Bruen is of no consideration by ATF when people fill out the unconstitutional form to buy a gun so I guess those folks who are STILL DENIED but legal under Bruen are forced to shop outside the current tyrantical system. Seems reasonable to me… Read more »


The Supremes saved NY gun owners.
NYS told the Supremes to F%$& @FF.
District Court Judge told NY . . . can’t do that.
Second circuit 3 Judge Panel said, oh YES THEY CAN!
So now it is again up to the Supremes to save NY gun owners


The Supremes saved NY gun owners.
NYS told the Supremes to FUCK OFF.
District Court Judge told NY . . . can’t do that.
Second circuit 3 Judge Panel said, oh YES THEY CAN!
So now it is again up to the Supremes to save NY gun owners


IOW – Bruen may very well be the ‘law of the land’ but we are still gonna do what we want to do so there. Prove us wrong, we are the gubmint and you can fight us, and ‘maybe’ win in the long run but it’s gonna be really expensive and take lots of time. Meanwhile our draconian edicts are still in place.


Immediate execution of those that violate the Constitution and or Bill of Rights.
For that matter automatic impeachment and execution when a politician makes a campaign promise then votes just once in direct violation of said promise.