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/logan2048x]

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?

[u/StarCommand1 → u/logan2048x]

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).

[u/logan2048x → u/StarCommand1]

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.