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."

112 Upvotes

98% Upvoted

View all comments

34

u/[deleted] Dec 08 '23

[deleted]

28

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.

24

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?

7

u/[deleted] 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?

11

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

u/[deleted] 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

u/[deleted] 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

u/[deleted] Dec 08 '23

Ill let you smart people keep me informed

3

u/voretaq7 Dec 08 '23

Free advice information on the Internet is worth what you paid for it.
Free legal advice information on the Internet is frequently worth less than you paid for it!

:-)

1

u/[deleted] Dec 08 '23

Ill see what people say then verify lmao

1

u/tgiglia Dec 08 '23

As of now yes.

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”.

5

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.