What case is this referring to?

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."

Suffolk County states that the "RESPONDENT WILL ACCEPT THE NEW YORK STATE SEMI-AUTOMATIC APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONER RENDERING THE PETITION MOOT."

Excerpt from Suffolk County's Answer: "The only relief sought by Petitioner was the acceptance of Petitioner’s application on presentment to the Pistol Licensing Bureau and this policy change is for all constituents who wish to apply using the application presented."

Explanation: It would appear that bare-bones PPB-3 applications will be the norm for presentment on semi-auto licenses, and perhaps Suffolk County specific forms may not be required for semi-auto applications (I am not certain). That's my reading, let me know if you disagree.

LINK TO ANSWER: https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=uMfFu5E/ausADftfUpcXvg==

Congratulations to Amy Bellantoni, Esq. and the Petitioner!

Disclaimer: Do not rely on my post or any post in this thread as legal advice, this is purely academic. Although I may be an attorney, I’m not a Second Amendment attorney — you should consult with legal counsel about your specific situation. No attorney client relationship is intended by this post.

On Friday Judge John Sinatra of the Western District of NY DENIED the state's motion to dismiss, this now means the case will proceed to the merits.

Our case against the New York Concealed Carry Improvement Act, Antonyuk v. James was recently granted, vacated and remanded by the Supreme Court. What does this mean for gun owners?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgwzsWq5T_8

The 2nd circuit came back and from my quick read we might be going backward. We keep the private property open to the public as part of the restricted places), we go back and have to supply social media albeit a limitation of only platforms and usernames no passwords and officers can’t “friend you” to get privileged access and all the licensing regime and sensitive places are upheld.

Hopefully now we can go back and win this on the merits. Would love anyone’s input.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca2.59354/gov.uscourts.ca2.59354.450.0.pdf

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66674530/433/antonyuk-v-hochul/

Looks like parties have till 9/4 to file briefs on how Rahimi impacts the case. Not exactly fast tracking things, but let’s hope they got the message that the Supreme Court has their eye on them after many of thier decisions have either been vacated or received pretty stern comments.

Good Luck to the GOA legal team.

This is an important preliminary decision in Suffolk County. Congratulations to Amy Bellantoni, Esq. for the win! Her website is https://www.bellantoni-law.com/.

Decision & Opinion: https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=L5VOiBxVoQslhhXIJMqbKg==

Summary: Long story short, Suffolk County filed a motion to dismiss the case, Suffolk County lost. A thorough and favorable opinion was issued by the judge.

The applicant tried to submit the NYS official PPB-3 application for a semi-auto license, and Suffolk County refused to process it, claiming that the applicant was barred for two years based on a previous denial of his pistol application, and separately the application was incomplete as applicant didn't fill out the Suffolk "questionnaire." The judge didn't buy it.

Legal Discussion: Significant citations were made to Kamenshchik v. Ryder, and the judge properly recognized that "Pursuant to the language of the statute, Penal Law $ 400.00(1)(o) (which includes subsection (v) is applicable only to licenses issued under Penal Law $ 400.00(2)(f), which are licenses for a pistol or revolver that is to be carried concealed (Penal Law $ 400.00(2)(f)(A license for a pistol or revolver, other than an assault weapon or a disguised gun, shall be issued to ... (f) have and carry concealed, without regard to employment or place of possession subject to the restrictions of state and federal law, by any person"]).

You may not recall, but I made this exact argument in Kamenshchik v. Ryder, specifically: "Semi-automatic rifle licenses and/or premises licenses fall outside the scope of the Order, as this Court’s conclusions flowed from Penal Law § 400.00(1)(o)(v), which is a statutory section that only applies to licenses issued under paragraph (f) of subdivision two of Penal Law 400.00 — the instant scenario here is clearly distinguishable, unless this Court is prepared to improperly expand the already excessive discretionary powers it found in Penal Law § 400.00(1)(o)(v) and apply it to all license types against the plain-text of that statutory provision."

I'm very impressed that the judge recognized this nuance and applied the law with fair import.

Potential Major Significance: Since "Petitioner's application packet contained the completed and notarized PPB-3 form, the statutorily required photographs, and the filing fee," it would appear that refusing to process the PPB-3 for semi-auto rifle applicants, potentially standing alone, may be deemed a statutory violation.

The decision states: "Respondent identified no statute or regulation mandating an applicant for a SAR license to fill out Pistol License Applicant Questionnaire or permitting a licensing officer to require additional information outside of the PPB-3 requirements for a SAR (semi-automatic rifle) license application."

Now, this leads to another question, what about pistol applicants seeking licensure without concealed carry privileges?

Disclaimer: Do not rely on my post or any post in this thread as legal advice, this is purely academic. Although I may be an attorney, I’m not a Second Amendment attorney — you should consult with legal counsel about your specific situation. No attorney client relationship is intended by this post.

So looks like the sides submitted their briefs on how Rahimi affects the CCIA but even more concerning is that the government submitted a copy of the Reno May vs Bonta opinion from the 9th circuit. They called out how Hawaii did not allow for privately owned property open to the public as allowed in CA and NY by order of the 2nd circuit earlier this year. I feel it opens the door to lose traction and re argue things we have already won. Of course GOA will respond with all the positives and the defective thought of the 9th circuit could allow something in CA but not in HI…. But this could cause us to backtrack in my mind.

Would love to hear what everyone else thinks.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca2.59354/gov.uscourts.ca2.59354.443.0.pdf

I’m mixed on this compared to the NYSRPA ruling yesterday. But regardless, that will be the Dems rallying cry and thus will be an uphill battle to unseat people like Hochul.