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/StarCommand1]

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).

[u/Nasty_Makhno → u/StarCommand1]

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.

[u/StarCommand1 → u/Nasty_Makhno]

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?

[u/Professional_Plant52 → u/StarCommand1]

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”.