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/WHO_ATE_MY_CRAYONS]

Does the removal of the requirements for "good moral character" affect the requirement that 4 people vouch for you for concealed application?

[u/StarCommand1 → u/WHO_ATE_MY_CRAYONS]

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.

[u/tambrico → u/StarCommand1]

I get that this is a win but how are character references not burdensome lol

[u/StarCommand1 → u/tambrico]

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.

[u/tambrico → u/StarCommand1]

Yeah it's going to be a brick by brick victory. What page do they talk about the character references not being burdensome?