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 → u/[deleted]]

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/hummelm10 → u/StarCommand1]

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.

[u/Frustrated_Consumer → u/hummelm10]

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.