November 7, 2022 – As Renzulli Law Firm previously reported, on July 1, 2022, New York State introduced the so-called Concealed Carry Improvement Act (“CCIA”). In response, Ivan Antonyuk, along with five other New York State residents, all of whom are members of Gun Owners of America, filed a lawsuit against Bruen and several other state actors (Antonyuk v. Hochul). The plaintiffs then filed an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) and a motion for a preliminary injunction. Also as previously reported, on October 6, 2022, Judge Glenn Suddaby of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York, issued a 53 page decision granting in part and denying in part plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”), finding that many of the provisions in the CCIA were unconstitutional infringements on the Second Amendment. Shortly thereafter, however, the State defendants filed a Motion for a Stay Pending Appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which was ultimately granted, allowing the CCIA to remain in effect while the State pursues its appeal.
Today, Judge Suddaby issued a 184-page decision (insert) regarding plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. Similar to the Court’s prior analyses addressing the TRO, Judge Suddaby analyzed the “likelihood of success on the merits” of each of plaintiffs’ claims. Applying the Second Amendment analysis set forth in the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision, the Court found many of the provisions of the CCIA to be unconstitutional infringements of the Second Amendment. The Court then preliminarily enjoined the State defendants, including “their officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys,” from enforcing the following provisions of the CCIA:
(1) the provision requiring an applicant prove he/she has “good moral character” to be issued a carry permit or have one renewed;
(2) the provision requiring the disclosure of “names and contact information for the applicant’s current spouse, or domestic partner, any other adults residing in the applicant’s home, including any adult children of the applicant, and whether or not there are minors residing, full time or part time, in the applicant’s home” to complete the license application;
(3) the provision requiring a “list of former and current social media accounts of the applicant from the past three years” to complete the license application;
(4) the provision requiring “such other information required by review of the licensing application that is reasonably necessary and related to the review of the licensing application”;
(5) the prohibition of carrying a concealed firearm in the following “sensitive locations”:
- “any location providing . . . behavioral health, or chemical dependance care or services” (except to places to which the public or a substantial group of persons have not been granted access);
- any place of worship or religious observation;
- public parks and zoos;
- airports (to the extent the license holder is complying with federal regulations) and buses;
- any establishment issued a license for on-premise consumption of alcohol;
- theaters, conference centers, and banquet halls; and
- any gathering of individuals to collectively express their constitutional rights to protest or assemble; and
(6) the provision making private property a prohibited “restricted location” unless a sign permitting possession of firearms is posted.
Further, Judge Suddaby denied the State’s request for a limitation on the scope of the injunction and/or a stay of the injunction pending an appeal. Therefore, the above referenced provisions are no longer in effect in New York, at least until the State defendants appeal and the Second Circuit addresses these issues.
Renzulli Law Firm, LLP will continue to monitor any developments regarding the CCIA and New York’s firearms related legislation and litigation. If you have any questions concerning firearm related matters in New York and elsewhere, please contact John F. Renzulli or Christopher Renzulli.