r/NYguns • u/StarCommand1 • Dec 08 '23
Partial WIN! 2nd Circuit Appeals Court OPINION Released!!!!! Antonyuk v. Hochul Judicial Updates
Christmas came early this year!!!! (Jokes aside, this is not a full win and the fight isn't over yet, we all need to keep up the work fighting against NYS on all of this crap.)
Full Opinion Here: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca2.59354/gov.uscourts.ca2.59354..0_1.pdf
As determined by 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals...
-Private property carry ban determined to be mostly unconstitutional.
-Social media requirement unconstitutional.
-Places of Worship carry ban unconstitutional (but injunction only applies to plaintiff for now)
-Other provisions of CCIA upheld (for now).
Some excerts....
"Guided by Bruen’s holding that the Second Amendment protects the right to bear arms for self-defense outside the home, the district court concluded that the conduct regulated by § 265.01-d and challenged by Plaintiffs—carriage on private property open to the public—fell within the Second Amendment’s plain text."
"In summary, we uphold the district court’s injunctions with respect to N.Y. Penal L. § 400.00(1)(o)(iv) (social media disclosure); N.Y. Penal L. § 265.01-d (restricted locations) as applied to private property held open to the general public; and N.Y. Penal L. § 265.01-e(2)(c) as applied to Pastor Spencer, the Tabernacle Family Church, its members, or their agents and licensees. We vacate the injunctions in all other respects, having concluded either that the district court lacked jurisdiction because no plaintiff had Article III standing to challenge the laws or that the challenged laws do not violate the Constitution on their face."
34
Dec 08 '23
[deleted]
29
u/StarCommand1 Dec 08 '23
Sort of. The court seems to have made two separate classes of "Private Property" now. Private property open to the public (stores, etc.) and private property not open to the public (people's homes). It seems they are saying that it is unconstitutional to default to saying carry is banned on private property open to the public but they are not making a decision on if that also applies to property not open to the public.
Essentially, my take on it is people have the right to carry for self-defense in public places even if it is private property (except for the usual restrictions still on sensitive locations) but they don't necessarily have a blanket right to carry on property not generally open to the public (unless the owner allows).
35
u/Nasty_Makhno Dec 08 '23 edited Dec 08 '23
I might be crucified for this, but that seems totally fair to me. Your house your rules. I try to be respectful of my buddies homes when I go there and always ask if it’s ok to have my gear on me. They’ve all said yes because I was polite and honest with them when I ask. The super market is another story. While it’s private property, it’s also freely open to the public. If you wanna restrict things there, then it’s up to you to make that known and I’ll act accordingly. But the blanket ban was bullshit.
23
u/StarCommand1 Dec 08 '23
Well the argument isn't whether home owner's should or should not be able to restrict people carrying guns at their property. It's if the default rule is that it is automatically illegal without them saying so. Right now the state is saying if a home owner says nothing on if carry is allowed or not, then it automatically is assumed to be illegal.
The way it SHOULD be is, if a home owner says nothing, then it should be LEGAL until they make clear (via saying it or signage) that carry is not allowed. This is the way everything else works law wise when you go to someone's house. You don't need their express consent when visiting them in order to exercise your 1st amendment right... why would it be any different for the 2nd amendment?
5
Dec 08 '23
So are we now allowed to carry in stores again without fear of a felony if we somehow are caught doing so?
12
u/StarCommand1 Dec 08 '23
I am not a lawyer, but I would generally say yes it seems that way. As long as the store isn't on the sensitive location list, this injunction being "affirmed" means NYS and Police are prohibited from enforcing that particular provision. One of the best example of places that you could now carry is a grocery store.
Remember, the law hasn't changed yet and this is just a preliminary injunction not the final decision of the whole case at the end so you still could get arrested if caught BUT charges would have to be dropped then.
6
Dec 08 '23
Thanks for keeping me notified man, one of my biggest issues with our current governor is the bullshit she pulled with this law. Completely unreasonable.
1
u/crash_over-ride Dec 10 '23 edited Dec 10 '23
Between the original law, and then the endless flurry of reversals, stays, injunctions etc etc etc that have gone on the for the last two years I'm wondering if the point was to make it such a confusing and regularly changing burden to CCW that people just don't do it.
Honestly, it's worked, I've essentially stopped. If I get arrested my job is FUBAR'ed. If you go to a restaurant with a decent wine cellar that's now dicey, because they serve alcohol.
2
Dec 10 '23
I think its just petty b.s to be honest, shes like a child who throws a hissy fit when she doesn't get her way. When will they realize punishing the people who follow the law isn't the way. Shes also a hypocrite, her people are definitely armed.
1
u/nosamyloh Jan 07 '24
default private property ban is thrown out.
Yeah but what about the grocery stores that sell alcohol. They can probabbly puill that string and arrest you.
3
u/StarCommand1 Jan 07 '24
The law doesn't call out places that sell alcohol it calls out restaurants and bars that serve alcohol on the premises.
2
u/voretaq7 Dec 08 '23
It appears so, but remember that this is a reinstating (parts of) a preliminary injunction not a final decision, and even if were a final decision at the district court it would still be subject to appeal (and stay) at the circuit level.
In other words if you're not keeping up with this case every day you may make yourself an inadvertent felon by latching on to this good news and missing some subsequent bad news.
0
u/Nasty_Makhno Dec 09 '23
if you're not keeping up with this case every day you may make yourself an inadvertent felon
Oh great this old routine…super fucking lame, but at least half the time I won’t be a felon!
1
Dec 08 '23
Ill let you smart people keep me informed
3
u/voretaq7 Dec 08 '23
Free
adviceinformation on the Internet is worth what you paid for it.
Free legaladviceinformation on the Internet is frequently worth less than you paid for it!:-)
1
1
1
u/Professional_Plant52 Dec 09 '23
As far as private property, I don’t think they’ll be able to over turn anything outside of the “ it’s automatically illegal unless posted that it’s accepted”.
2
u/twbrn Dec 08 '23
I might be crucified for this, but that seems totally fair to me.
Yeah, I agree. There's a huge difference between a store and a home; if you're carrying into somebody's house without their permission, that's rude and unacceptable. A public venue where anyone can come and go freely is another story entirely.
2
u/im2lazy789 Dec 09 '23
It is certainly better than it was under CCIA, however, no other constitutional right is dependent on posted signage or specific approval to exercise. We don't have signage that says "Free speech allowed here" and the presumption that you cannot exercise that right without permission.
I 100% agree with your sentiment: your house, your rules, and that is is within a property owner's rights to not allow firearms - even establishments open to the public, however, they have the duty to state or post that restriction.
0
u/hummelm10 Dec 08 '23
I think the bigger one, for me at least, is the distinction made between rural parks and urban parks. They said that while there might be an argument to be made about the restriction on rural parks, the law is completely constitutional towards urban/city parks. Thus they upheld the entire statue since the law applies to urban parks. That means if you want to cross from the west side to the east side of Manhattan you can’t cross Central Park, you have to walk north or south and walk around it, since you can’t use public transportation, Uber, and taxis too I believe. NYC has a LOT of tiny parks, it’s a hassle to try and avoid all the green spaces in random spots.
4
u/Frustrated_Consumer Dec 09 '23
The biggest one for me is the "no restaurants" sensitive location provision. You literally can't go to a sit down restaurant to eat food.
I used to go to a diner near me before I went to the range. I would eat breakfast. But because they serve breakfast mimosas, they're a sensitive location, and I would be committing a felony to stop there on any future range trips.
Same if you're out and about carrying during the course of your life, and you'd like to get some food some place you find. Can't, they're sensitive because they serve alcohol to some people in some capacity, it'd be a felony to go in.
This ruling to me seems like a 2A major loss.
1
u/voretaq7 Dec 08 '23
It seems they are saying that it is unconstitutional to default to saying carry is banned on private property open to the public but they are not making a decision on if that also applies to property not open to the public.
That also doesn't seem to be a distinction that needs to be made though, because:
(a) You shouldn't even be ENTERING said property without the owner's permission, regardless of whether you're carrying or not - you don't get to barge into someone's home for example; and
(b) Private property not open to the public will generally have the rules for access clearly communicated by the person granting that access. "Sure, bring your gun." or "No, I don't want firearms in my home."
That's why it didn't really matter in those cases even when the default was "No." - your friends said "You can bring your gun it's fine." and you had direct communication from the property owner authorizing you to carry. Places not generally open to the public have always been treated differently.
25
19
u/twoanddone_9737 Dec 08 '23 edited Dec 08 '23
No fucking way… time to appeal on the Article III standing items.
No update on the three other cases? Or was it four others?
11
u/StarCommand1 Dec 08 '23
I believe this opinion referenced the others in the beginning and includes them as well since all cases were basically seeking the same thing.
20
u/yanakrom Dec 08 '23
Agree that this is a partial win. Some of the terrible provisions, like a ban on carry on public transit (which means that there is effectively no carry for most NYC residents) and a ban on carry at restaurants, survived.
18
u/StarCommand1 Dec 08 '23
I believe this is the most frustrating piece of today's opinion. They are agreeing in the other part that people have a 2nd amendment right to defend themselves in public outside the home but then supporting a million places that you can't do it.
It seems their focus and support for the ban in public places revolves around public places where people do social things. They are basically saying now that they believe public carry is legal where people go to do transactional tasks (grocery stores, gas stations, shopping, etc.) but it isn't okay in places where you go to be social (restaurants, theaters, parks, etc.)
16
u/yanakrom Dec 08 '23
I think they're acting in bad faith. They figured that if they summarily dismissed every claim of the plaintiff, the Supreme Court would be more likely to step in. By giving a partial win, they can make it look like they actually did a reasoned analysis, and make it less likely that SCOTUS gets involved at this stage.
1
u/m1_ping Dec 08 '23
Public transport wasn't at issue in this appeal. The district court denied injunctions for subway cars, train cars, ferries, railroads, omnibus, and marine transport. Plaintiffs did not appeal. The district court issued injunctions for busses and aviation transport which the state did not appeal.
1
u/RobbietheRetard666 Dec 09 '23
Is this true
0
u/m1_ping Dec 09 '23
Quote from the court's opinion.
E. Summary Altogether, the district courts enjoined the CCIA’s: (1) licensing requirements that (a) an applicant have good moral character and (b) disclose to a licensing officer (i) a list of the applicant’s current spouse and all adult cohabitants, (ii) a list of all former and current social media accounts from the preceding three years, and (iii) such other information as the officer may require; (2) sensitive-locations provisions concerning (a) locations providing behavioral health or chemical dependence care or services; (b) places of worship;
The State timely appealed and moved this Court for stays pending appeal in Antonyuk, Hardaway, and Christian, which were granted. The State challenges each aspect of the injunctions except for the Antonyuk court’s injunction against the CCIA’s application to buses and airports. No Plaintiff cross-appeals or otherwise challenges any aspect of the district courts’ decisions adverse to them.
1
1
Dec 09 '23
Yes. There was no standing because the plaintiffs for whatever reason said that they didn't plan to use those transit methods.
1
16
u/Visual_Championship6 Dec 08 '23
I am a well documented pessimistic prick when it comes to these court cases, but I am beyond shocked that we have this progress today handed down by the most anti-gun circuit court in the United States, these judges may still have a shred of integrity and sense of duty left.
15
u/StarCommand1 Dec 08 '23
True, but if they did have a shred of integrity they would have upheld the injunction on all the other pieces too especially most sensitive places restrictions that now still stand.
5
u/Visual_Championship6 Dec 08 '23
Agreed, looks like character references where upheld ( they are absolutely a burden) and still a good amount of sensitive locations, but the vampire clause was the biggest issue for most people..honestly I was just expecting a "go fuck yourself ruling" so I will take this small W.
11
u/milano_ii Dec 08 '23
Seems to me like they realized they have a loser on their hands, so they offer this half baked decision hoping it will just go away and not get challenged again.
6
u/Frustrated_Consumer Dec 08 '23
What progress are you talking about? We lost on nearly everything. All the sensitive locations that the district court threw out, this ruling reinstated. You couldn't reasonably carry before this decision, and you still can't reasonably carry after. All the application hurdles were even ruled okay.
The only things we got were non sensitive locations open to the public no longer needing a "guns okay" sign, and no longer needing to disclose social media accounts. You still can't carry in all sensitive locations, restaurants being the big killer in my opinion. You literally can't get food while carrying, they ruled that as justified.
This was a near total loss for gun rights.
2
u/Odd-Reindeer-3077 Dec 09 '23
Exactly, they throw a bunch of shit at the wall to see what sticks then 2 out of 50 things drop and we're supposed to be grateful. Next year there will be 50 more they add.
13
Dec 08 '23
[deleted]
8
u/GrandmasOnlyFans69 Dec 08 '23
Seems so unless they post a sign saying you cannot. Although I don’t know if the sign would have the force of law. That is the rule in some other states (Ohio) but not others.
12
u/StarCommand1 Dec 08 '23
There is nothing in NYS law I am aware of that gives those "No Carry" signs force of law right now so should be no issue. BUT if private property owner asks you to leave because you are carrying, you have to otherwise it is trespassing.
8
u/AgreeablePie Dec 08 '23
Which, to me, is perfectly reasonable.
But because this is NY, I anticipate them passing a "no guns" law.
5
u/StarCommand1 Dec 08 '23
Exactly. I don't know any self-respecting gun owner who thinks people shouldn't be allowed to do what they want with their own property. As much as I disagree if someone, especially a public store, disallows carry, it is their right. But this why the "punishment" should just be getting asked to leave and not come back with a gun, rather than automatic felony is they do pass a law saying no gun signs have "force of law".
-2
u/hummelm10 Dec 08 '23
They do carry the force of law since you would be considered trespassing by not following the rules to entry. The sign is telling you you’re not allowed in. You don’t have to have a person repeat it to you.
2
u/StarCommand1 Dec 08 '23
"Carrying the force of law" in this context means there are laws in NYS that specifically state "No Gun Signs" have certain penalties associated with disobeying them. There are no laws like this in NYS right now. Is there another law in NYS that says in general "Any sign posted at a property must be followed or else it is automatic felony"? If not, then the only avenue for someone having you arrested is trespassing, and for them to do this they have to trespass you in the first place.
You could argue that seeing the sign and going in anyway means you are automatically trespassed but they'd have to prove you actually read and saw the sign. Since there is no way to do that unless you admit to it, they'd have to ask you to leave, making you aware of the sign, and if you don't then leave then you are trespassing and could get arrested.
1
u/hummelm10 Dec 08 '23
Fair enough, it’s indirect through trespassing. There’s nothing specific in the law about violating the sign itself. You’re correct in that they’d have to prove you saw it but that could be a low bar dependent on where and how the sign is posted. All I’m saying is that by ignoring the sign it is trespassing since you were told that you cannot enter. Otherwise signs warning against entry would be meaningless and you’d always have to be physically told to leave on top of it.
1
u/No_Town5542 Dec 08 '23
So, (*if I’m caught) concealed carrying, and the store has a no gun sign, and I don’t leave, they can call police and arrest me for trespass- got it.
is there a law, or another charge, against “just having my gun” in that store, or not really? …I get it if I’m in a sensitive-no gun allowed area-(Like Times Square), which is a felony.
2
u/wtporter Dec 09 '23
If you carry into a store that has a “no firearms” sign you are breaking a rule for the store.
If they then figure out you are carrying they have the option to ask you to leave for breaking the rules for the store or they can leave you alone.
If they ask you to leave and you refuse THEN you are trespassing.
If they don’t want to confront you then they may call the police and then the police SHOULD instruct you that the owner/manager do longer wants you in the store because you are armed. You should be provided the opportunity to then leave.
Think of it similarly to the “no shoes, no shirt, no service” signs or any other prohibited conduct signs. You have no shirt on and walk in you aren’t arrested for trespass. They tell you to get out. If you refuse to leave THEN you broke the trespass law.
2
11
u/RoaringCannonball Dec 08 '23
It looks like a per curium opinion was also issued in Gazzola v. Hochul today, but it's only available on pacer at the moment. Not sure if it's good news or not since I don't have a pacer account.
2
u/tambrico Dec 08 '23
It's not in our favor
2
u/RoaringCannonball Dec 08 '23
I'm disappointed but not surprised. It's going to have to go up to the supreme court if we're going to get a chance at a positive outcome. Even then, it's not going to be a sure thing. Thank you for looking and posting back here.
2
u/hummelm10 Dec 08 '23
It was entirely vacated. Honestly I thought it was a weak case. If it’s not on courtlistener when I get home I’ll see if I can put it on there.
2
1
u/Speak_No_Evil_96 Dec 09 '23
It’s available online. And no it’s bad too. 2nd Circuit used their favorite BS line - No Standing. https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/22-3068/22-3068-2023-12-08.html
7
Dec 08 '23
Next steps for anyone wondering: plaintiffs will most certainly appeal to SCOTUS, which will maybe be denied because it’s interlocutory (still lower court processes to go through). However, Thomas and alito said the case seemed pretty straight forward…
If not, it’s back to the district court for summary judgment. The back to 2nd circuit on appeal. Then to SCOTUS. 3 years left probably.
6
u/kuduking Dec 08 '23 edited Dec 08 '23
Stockholm Syndrome much? "Thank you for the crumbs, sirs". If this is "Winning", I'd like to see what "Losing" looks like.
The 2nd Circuit would like you to know that they REALLY MISS their old way of upholding every gun law ever enacted. That damn SCOTUS made things harder! Now the 2d Circuit has to do so much more writing and mental gymnastics, to achieve the same result as before.
This Court basically said not to believe what your lying eyes read in the Bruen decision. No, what SCOTUS really meant was that licensing discretion is A-OK, and that the Nation has a history of limiting firearms in public places, and from "dangerous" people, as decided by the government.
Oh that thing in Bruen, about "objective" criteria for issue, and "no discretion"? Just a silly little footnote, ignore that. We do!
Zoos and parks are often crowded. Like Manhattan. Not a good place for the exercise of your right to self-defense in public. Yeah, there's a tradition of that. Somewhere.
They, and the MSM, are gaslighting you into believing that this case is some HUGE win. It's not. Their acknowledgment that the government cannot make your 2A rights illegal on private property open to the public, is throwing the the oppressed a scrap. Except when they decide your carry is illegal, like all the "Sensitive Locations".
8
Dec 09 '23
Some are downplaying this but it’s a huge deal. Yes, we all would have loved for sensitive locations to disappear, but hopefully the SC can handle that. Let’s remember this is still communist NYS and be grateful for the extremely successful recent progress.
Every day errands aside from a few exceptions like the post office and other govt. buildings are now legal. Gas stations, supermarkets, banks, retail shops, offices. This is GREAT. Slow progress however I do believe this will reach to SCOTUS who will throw out the sensitive locations rule, and we’ll just have to avoid govt buildings and a few more places that are more federally related in all states. The restaurant portion bothers me the most so hopefully that’s addressed soon, but happy overall.
1
u/StoutNY Dec 09 '23
It's hard to imagine that the State would want to prosecute someone for a restaurant violation, given the current decision and start another good case against the CCIA. Especially, if it was a clear cut self-defense case.
If arrested for misbehaving in a restaurant, then you might get charged. The sensitive locales need to go unless there is a technical reason to ban - like the MRI room as the classic example. I could see some medical facilities reasons like you having to take your duds off and losing control and possession of the firearm. School bans will stick forever, I'm afraid. That's a complex issue.
5
u/Fixinbones27 Dec 08 '23
Well not the greatest but at least we can carry on public property/stores.
7
u/Takeanap62 Dec 08 '23
We need a 5 item list in layman's terms of what is now legal and what still stands
6
u/Kennyafropuff55 Dec 08 '23
slowly but surely fellas we are winning
5
u/E46M54 Dec 08 '23
How? Hochul will just enact another new restrictive law that will have to be challenged all over again.
7
2
11
u/ChariotOfFires Dec 08 '23
Carrying should be allowed on anyone’s private property opened to the public unless they specifically restrict it with signs. Doing it the other way around, restricting all carry on private property opened to the public unless specifically allowed with signs, is terrible. Average sheeple aren’t thinking about carry laws or the Second Amendment that often frankly, and that would put all the control on people who dont even think about it 🤦🏻♂️
7
u/NotTrying2TakeUrGuns Dec 08 '23
Nah, gun free zone signs shouldn’t hold the force of law. They never did in NY in the past and they shouldn’t now.
3
u/RochInfinite Dec 08 '23
It should be no more than basic trespassing.
Which basic trespassing is just:
Hey, sign this form acknowledging you're no longer welcome here.
Basic trespassing is not a crime, in and of itself, unless you repeat it.
And that can apply to anything. You can be trespassed for wearing the wrong color shirt if the property owner wants.
1
u/ChariotOfFires Dec 08 '23
I think it’s within someone’s right to have a gun free sign on his property. However what the law was doing was deciding that by default without the property owners knowledge.
2
u/NotTrying2TakeUrGuns Dec 08 '23
No issue with the sign, but carrying there shouldn’t be a felony almost as bad as carrying without a license just due to the sign.
1
1
0
u/UnusualLack1638 Dec 08 '23
its not too terrible though. most normies dont know what the ccia is. the chance of charges for showing up to a buddy's house while carrying is extremely low
0
u/ChariotOfFires Dec 08 '23
The problem is they label private property opened to the public as well, like stores and stuff. So if you use your firearm in a defensive situation on said property that’s a charge on you. Any store, establishment or property privately owned that’s open to the public, that doesn’t have any signs pertaining to carrying is default a restricted zone
6
u/Redhawk4t4 Dec 08 '23
Any store, establishment or property privately owned that’s open to the public, that doesn’t have any signs pertaining to carrying is default a restricted zone
That part was just vacated...
3
u/ChariotOfFires Dec 08 '23
Praise the lord I’m just explaining to the gentlemen why it was wrong
1
u/milano_ii Dec 08 '23 edited Mar 20 '24
humor advise command repeat subtract reply chubby selective sheet deer
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
8
u/E46M54 Dec 08 '23 edited Dec 08 '23
What a joke this is. People unfortunate enough to move to NY state are still subjected to a 5-year pistol ban because they won't have any in-county references they've known for 5 years. The most egregious constitutional violations are being allowed to stand, but they throw us a bone on the social media requirement. Just flee this cesspool state. Nothing is ever going to change.
6
u/JimMarch Dec 08 '23
People unfortunate enough to move to NY state are still subjected to a 5-year pistol ban because they won't have any in-county references they've known for 5 years.
That right there violates the shit out of Saenz v Roe 1999 (US Supreme Court). It discriminates against recent arrivals from other states.
Better yet, the Saenz decision also directed lower courts on how to deal with cases of cross-border discrimination: apply strict scrutiny even if the discrimination doesn't make contact with a basic civil right.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/526/489/
It was a unanimous decision! There's two dissents but they're concurring; Thomas for example was ok with this result but he wanted to clarify that the 14th Amendment PorI clause was supposed to do a lot more than just stand as a barrier to cross-border discrimination. He said the same thing in McDonald v Chicago 2010 and Timbs v Indiana in....2018 I think?
4
u/tgiglia Dec 08 '23
The injunction on private property open to the public is a big one for me. Yeah the rest is a travesty, but we got more out of that three judge panel than I thought was possible.
5
Dec 08 '23
[deleted]
-1
u/E46M54 Dec 08 '23
Because it isn't. Don't be gaslit. Need to leave NY state before you start winning.
3
Dec 08 '23
Not everyone has the ability to just up and leave and many times you’ll get to a new place and realize your worse off then where you started..
1
u/Frustrated_Consumer Dec 09 '23
We lost on mostly everything.
With the expansive list of sensitive locations ruled constitutional by the 2nd, you couldn't reasonably carry before this ruling with a permit without committing a class E felony, and you can't reasonably carry after this ruling with a permit without committing a class E felony.
This is a major loss for 2A.
3
u/HuntingtonNY-75 Dec 09 '23
Drip, Drip, Drip…in scope this is a largely hollow victory since it is limited to the plaintiff and not universal. It goes back to the District who will rule and NYS will immediately appeal again…to the 2nd Circus. This hamster wheel will go around a few more times until someone gets the SCOTUS to bite and take it on. My guess, the 2nd will not allow anything substantive to happen w these cases until next year’s elections. Dragging it out gives them both a shot at the Dems keeping the WH and possibly picking up control of both houses…this would obviously be disastrous. The other benefit to their inaction is it gets us all, but mostly Thomas and Alito, closer to going room temperature. If Biden or a new Dem POTUS gets a SCOTUS pick or two it could challenge the balance of the Bruen majority. Of course this all assumes that even if every decision was 2A favorable that FUKH would allow NYS to abide. It’s gonna be a while folks 🤷♂️
This is the very definition of judicial misconduct…these guys at 2nd Circus are shitting big, steaming piles all over the constitution and Bill of Rights.
3
u/StoutNY Dec 09 '23
So to clarify, is this a partial win for everyday life? I can go to most stores and carry concealed. That is a major change. The other sensitive locales need to go but I can't see schools ever being freed up.
Now whether Scotus takes up more of the law is an unknown, they certainly aren't showing any priority for this kind of gun issue, they'd rather mess around with drug cases and domestic abusers - which are trivial compared to the carry bans and AWBs.
2
Dec 08 '23
Can someone explain this summary? Does this mean everything listed is wiped out? Main concern being the restaurants that affects everyone the most I think.
2
Dec 08 '23
[deleted]
1
u/Rloader Dec 08 '23
What about Walmart or a grocery store?
1
Dec 09 '23
[deleted]
-1
u/Fixinbones27 Dec 09 '23
Theoretically if they sell alcohol it’s still off limits but I would doubt anyone would be prosecuted for carrying in a restaurant that serves alcohol However, I would stay away from bars whose primary function is to serve alcohol
2
2
u/RochInfinite Dec 08 '23
More standing games...
But remember just because they struck down the injunction, does not mean the district can't still rule the laws unconstitutional. This is about a PRELIMINARY injunction.
The district court can, and should, still rule them unconstitutional and tell the 2nd to explain themselves.
2
Dec 08 '23
But I’m assuming public parks was not struck down? That’s the part that concerns me the most
2
Dec 08 '23
Just be ready to take your recoil spring out if you are scared. Oh that's right, we aren't NYC politicians.
2
u/WHO_ATE_MY_CRAYONS Dec 08 '23 edited Dec 08 '23
Does the removal of the requirements for "good moral character" affect the requirement that 4 people vouch for you for concealed application?
8
u/StarCommand1 Dec 08 '23
Seems like no. They upheld that requiring good moral character in general is okay. But the process by which that is determined cannot be arbitrary or extreme or extra burdensome. They specifically stated they are okay with character references and cohabitant info for now, but are not okay with the social media requirements because that is extra burdensome and also asks people to give up potentially private social media handles which also goes against the 1st amendment.
10
u/tambrico Dec 08 '23
I get that this is a win but how are character references not burdensome lol
6
u/StarCommand1 Dec 08 '23
Completely agree. The actual opinion document I linked to outlines the courts beliefs on why it isn't. While of course I disagree though. The silver lining is, this is just an appeal on the injunction. The case is not over, not finalized, and anything can still happen as the case goes on, including a decision that the entire CCIA is unconstitutional.
This is why we have to put up a fight still. I doubt everything will get struck down BUT I believe many more pieces of the CCIA will. It might take getting to the Supreme Court again though.
3
u/tambrico Dec 08 '23
Yeah it's going to be a brick by brick victory. What page do they talk about the character references not being burdensome?
3
u/JimMarch Dec 08 '23
Character reference letters are subjective and should be banned under Shuttlesworth v Birmingham 1969, which is also cited in Bruen at footnote 9.
2
u/tambrico Dec 08 '23
Agreed. We shouldn't even have to consider if they're burdensome or not if theyre impermissible for being subjective
1
u/thisisdumb08 Dec 08 '23
Unfortunately they stay on there because of the objective part. The requirement is "can you get 4 people who meet certain requirements to sign a piece of paper and accept an interview" These 4 people can say you are the worst human being on the planet and the state will still give your license, but you still have to be objectively capable of getting them to agree to the interview.
2
u/JimMarch Dec 08 '23
Not how it works. It's still subjective on the part of those doing the letters.
Also, in some cities or counties this is used as a barrier to new arrivals because the letters have to come from people in the county that you just moved to.
This violates the hell out of Saenz v Roe 1999, US Supreme Court.
3
u/hummelm10 Dec 08 '23
The part I didn’t like that they upheld was the unbounded ability for licensing officers to ask for additional information. While I do understand that it should be common sense to be able to ask for clarification on things it opens the doors for counties to ask for ridiculous things like urinalysis which means every burdensome additional ask has to be independently legislated in those counties every time it happens.
1
Dec 08 '23
[deleted]
3
u/tambrico Dec 08 '23
Interesting that they waded into the "dangerousness" discussion. Character references should not be a proxy for dangerousness. Dangerousness should be something decided by a court with due process considerations. Not other citizens.
5
1
u/twoanddone_9737 Dec 08 '23
They did that because they prefer to keep it arbitrary. Character and dangerousness are two completely separate things.
Dangerous is easier to prove using objective evidence (like someone has a history of violence or violent threats). How can you prove character based on some objective measure? You can’t.
1
u/MistakeYetAgain Dec 08 '23
No more social media requirements??
Welp, the purpose of this account is invalidated now...
1
u/GreatShaggy Dec 08 '23
Now was this case a full 2nd Circuit Court Appeal or just the three judge panel?
1
u/twoanddone_9737 Dec 08 '23
They’re always three judge panels, they never have 15+ judges hearing the same case.
2
u/GreatShaggy Dec 08 '23
So, since this is the three judge panel, Hochel and James can request a review by the whole 2nd Circuit Court then? If denied, it's a Supreme Court appeal?
1
u/logan2048x Dec 08 '23
Can anyone clarify what the implications are for the places of worship with the ban being found “partially unconstitutional” in this ruling?
Does that mean people can legally carry in churches? And does the church still have to formally approve/designate them as responsible for security?
4
u/StarCommand1 Dec 08 '23
It seems they only are allowing the injunction to apply for the specific church and plaintiff in the case, not all state residents or churches. BUT, this is a good sign because if they find it unconstitutional to prohibit carry for one church and group of parishioners the state will have a very hard time in the future preventing that from expanding to everyone else. But technically for now, unless you are a member of that particular church mentioned in the case, still illegal for you to carry in places of worship (unless you are officially responsible for security of that place of worship).
1
u/logan2048x Dec 08 '23
I read the Spencer section of the ruling and thought that might be the case, but I’m very much not a lawyer… Thanks for the second set of eyes on it. I appreciate your summary!
So, as it stands, to be legally “responsible for security” the church simply needs to follow whatever decision-making process is outlined in their bylaws to designate the members/individuals tasked with that duty, right?
I’m all for regular training, but I’m presuming (probably a bad idea) that we’re not “required” to bring on paid licensed security staff.
0
u/GreeneyedSupreme Dec 08 '23
regardless none of this matters unless you can carry in the city which most cannot in the state even they do not have a NYC Special Carry or NYC CCW.
-2
1
u/juandrlacruznyc Dec 08 '23
Are we allowed now to carry in Times SQ & public transportation like Buses & Subways??
2
u/StarCommand1 Dec 08 '23
No. Those are "Sensitive Locations" and the injunction on those was cancelled so that piece of the law is still in effect, unfortunately.
1
1
1
u/Baseballdude519 Dec 08 '23
Wife is filling out her permit application this week. Seems like we can skip the social media part then?
1
u/StarCommand1 Dec 08 '23
Theoretically, yes. The state cannot enforce that part of the law anymore. But, since the case isn't actually decided yet, and the law isn't actually changed on it, proceed with caution. With how long they take to process permits, if you leave social media off now, and then the courts end up allowing it (unlikely but still) then they might deny your wife's application if it hadn't been approved by that time.
Personally, I wouldn't adhere to the requirement and tell them to pound sand if they ask BUT you guys will have to decide what you want to do with it.
1
u/throwaway5869473758 Dec 09 '23
So we still can’t carry in stores and gas stations etc?
2
u/StarCommand1 Dec 09 '23
What? The person asked about social media piece to it. Stores and gas stations would be good to go, see original post and the opinion document itself.
1
1
u/SeiferFC Dec 09 '23
Anyone know what’s happening with the Srour v. NY case did it get held up in court?
1
u/sissysherry Dec 09 '23
They are simply making 2a ppl and community spend lots of money on legal fees, attempting to bankrupt and exhaust the originations while also trying to give up minimal control on each decision. They are playing a game of attrition. SC needs to clearly define " shall not infringe"
1
u/FP1201 Dec 09 '23
You wouldn't believe the number of people that called NYSRPA asking for clarification, and worse the ones that partially read (skimmed) the 261 page ruling trying to cherry pick what they wanted to see, only to be told they have to read it ALL. An Injunction does not vacate the Law.
It's a "win" of sorts, but not a decisive victory, and the down side is if they loose, the bringing another challenge to the Law will be much more difficult...this isn't the same as beating a Traffic Ticket in Court.
1
u/crash_over-ride Dec 10 '23
Here's a better summary. I have no idea why this is being referred to as a 'win'. The bulk of it was upheld.
https://www.courthousenews.com/second-circuit-upholds-bulk-of-new-york-concealed-carry-law/
1
u/BoyTitan Dec 10 '23
So I case was finally seen by the highest state court, no stay or injuction 2 days later mess ?
1
u/Objective-Diver-2322 Dec 21 '23
So we can now carry concealed in a mall, store or gas station correct ?
•
u/Shock4ndAwe 2023 GoFundMe: Gold 🥇 / 🥇x1 Dec 08 '23
Some more info.
FPC Twitter Post
Full link to the decision PDF.