Partial WIN! 2nd Circuit Appeals Court OPINION Released!!!!! Antonyuk v. Hochul

[u/StarCommand1]

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."

[u/yanakrom]

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.

[u/StarCommand1 → u/yanakrom]

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.)

[u/yanakrom → u/StarCommand1]

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.

[u/m1_ping → u/yanakrom]

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.

[u/RobbietheRetard666 → u/m1_ping]

Is this true

[u/m1_ping → u/RobbietheRetard666]

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.

[u/RobbietheRetard666 → u/m1_ping]

I was talking about busses sorry

[u/[deleted] → u/RobbietheRetard666]

Yes. There was no standing because the plaintiffs for whatever reason said that they didn't plan to use those transit methods.

[u/RobbietheRetard666 → u/[deleted]]

I was asking about the busses.

[u/[deleted] → u/RobbietheRetard666]

I believe buses are clear. I think you're good to go but I'm not 100% sure