Antonyuk v Hochul - Challenges new - New York Carry Law

[Molly B.]

And a good breakdown is provided in this video from Mark Smith at Four Boxes Diner
 

 

Antonyuk v Hochul New York.pdf

[GTX63]

More winning.

[Silhouette]

This is a very nicely written and well-considered response from the court.  I hope that the seventh circuit will find many of these arguments compelling when they next consider Illinois's lengthy list of sensitive places.  I imagine that it will be very hard for New York to prevail in this case.

[BobPistol]

Nice, the judge banned the restrictions on subways and public transport.      I wonder if that can be used in IL yet.   Probably not, may have to wait until the final ruling.

[Plinkermostly]

Something to seriously look forward to -- at long last.

[Euler]

New York Times

NYT said:

Robert Milby, Wayne County's new sheriff, has been in law enforcement most of his adult life, earning praise and promotions for conscientious service. But recently, Sheriff Milby has attracted attention for a different approach to the law: ignoring it.

 

Sheriff Milby is among at least a half-dozen sheriffs in upstate New York who have said they have no intention of aggressively enforcing gun regulations that state lawmakers passed last summer, forbidding concealed weapons in so-called sensitive areas -- a long list of public spaces including, but not limited to, government buildings and religious centers, health facilities and homeless shelters, schools and subways, stadiums and state parks, and, of course, Times Square.

 

"It's basically everywhere," said Sheriff Milby, in a recent interview in his office in Wayne County, east of Rochester. "If anyone thinks we're going to go out and take a proactive stance against this, that's not going to happen."

...

In New York, dissent has walked a fine line between loud complaints and winking resistance, including pledges of selective -- and infrequent -- enforcement.

 

"I have to enforce it because I swore to uphold the laws, but I can use as much discretion as I want," said Richard C. Giardino, the Republican sheriff in Fulton County, northwest of Albany. "If someone intentionally flouts the law, then they're going to be handled one way. But if someone was unaware that the rules have changed, then we're not going to charge someone with a felony because they went into their barbershop with their carry concealed."

...

"We will take the complaint, but it will go to the bottom of my stack," said Mike Filicetti, the Niagara County sheriff, who appends a Ronald Reagan quote to his emails. "There will be no arrests made without my authorization and it's a very, very low priority for me."

...

[Flynn]

Quote

"I have to enforce it because I swore to uphold the laws, but I can use as much discretion as I want,"

 

This is what irks me about many police, they hold their oath to uphold the law above their oath to uphold the constitution.

 

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the constitution of the United States, and the constitution of the State of New York, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of ____________________________________________________________ according to the best of my ability"

[papa]

On 10/10/2022 at 12:28 AM, Flynn said:

 

This is what irks me about many police, they hold their oath to uphold the law above their oath to uphold the constitution.

 

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the constitution of the United States, and the constitution of the State of New York, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of ____________________________________________________________ according to the best of my ability"

👍  I feel the same way!

[Euler]

The case is filed in the Federal District Court of Northern NY. (Docket)

 

On October 6, the same day that the temporary restraining order (TRO) was issued, multiple defendants appealed the TRO to the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals. The appeals are cases 22-2379 and 22-2403.

 

On October 12, CA2 issued a temporary stay on the temporary restraining order, pending review of a 3-judge panel.

 

On October 25, the Federal District Court of Northern NY held a hearing for a requested preliminary injunction. (The TRO was an emergency measure until a ruling on the injunction.)

 

On November 7, the district court dismissed Hochul as a defendant and issued a preliminary injunction on many (but not all) of the provisions of the "Concealed Carry Improvement Act." All the other defendants remain. Expect an appeal.

 

Order said:

Defendants, as well as their officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys (and any other persons who are in active concert or participation with them) are PRELIMINARILY ENJOINED from enforcing the following provisions of the Concealed Carry Improvement Act ... ("CCIA"):

(1) the following provisions contained in Section 1 of the CCIA:

(a) the provision requiring "good moral character";

(b) the provision requiring the "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";

(c) the provision requiring "a list of former and current social media accounts of the applicant from the past three years"; and

(d) the provision contained in Section 1 of the CCIA requiring "such other information required by review of the licensing application that is reasonably necessary and related to the review of the licensing application";

(2) the following "sensitive locations" provision contained in Section 4 of the CCIA:

(a) "any location providing... behavioral health, or chemical dependence care or services" (except to places to which the public or a substantial group of persons have not been granted access) as contained in Paragraph "2(b)"

(b) "any place of worship or religious observation" as contained in Paragraph "2(c)";

(c) "public parks, and zoos" as contained in Paragraph "2(d)";

(d) "airports" to the extent the license holder is complying with federal regulations, and "buses" as contained in Paragraph "2(n)";

(e) "any establishment issued a license for on-premise consumption pursuant to article four, four-A, five, or six of the alcoholic beverage control law where alcohol is consumed" as contained in Paragraph "2(o)";

(f) "theaters," "conference centers," and "banquet halls" as contained in Paragraph "2(p)"; and

(g) "any gathering of individuals to collectively express their constitutional rights to protest or assemble" as contained in Paragraph "2(s)"; and

(3) the "restricted locations" provision contained in Section 5 of the CCIA.

... The State Defendants' request for a limitation in the scope of this Preliminary Injunction and for a stay of it pending appeal ... is DENIED.

 

On 10/7/2022 at 10:56 AM, BobPistol said:

Nice, the judge banned the restrictions on subways and public transport. I wonder if that can be used in IL yet. Probably not, may have to wait until the final ruling.

 

This case is about NY law. IL is a different circuit. For us, it would take a different case (Judicial Second Amendment Case Discussion > Schoenthal v. Raoul - Challenges IL Carry Ban on Public Transportation) or this case would have to go to the Supreme Court.

[mauserme]

After Governor Hochul was dismissed it appears this is now styled Antonyuk v Nigrelli.  Subsequent to her dismissal the Second Circuit reinstated enforcement of many provisions of New York's new law.

 

Earlier today, GOA and GOF asked SCOTUS to halt the 2nd Circuit's stay:

 

 

https://www.gunowners.org/goa-files-emergency-request-with-scotus-in-ny-concealed-carry-case/

 

 

December 21, 2022

Washington, D.C. – Today, Gun Owners of America (GOA) and Gun Owners Foundation (GOF) filed an emergency application with the U.S. Supreme Court to halt the Second Circuit Court’s stay of a preliminary injunction in Antonyuk v. Nigrelli.

 

The case challenges New York’s misleadingly named “Concealed Carry Improvement Act,” which was enjoined by U.S. District Court Judge Glenn Suddaby in early November. However, the Second Circuit quickly halted this order, as they have with other successful challenges to the law, with a short, undetailed opinion.

 

Erich Pratt, GOA’s Senior Vice President, issued the following statement:  

 

“Governor Hochul and state lawmakers wasted no time in passing legislation that completely contradicted the Bruen precedent, and we urge the High Court to once again hold the state accountable for violating the Second Amendment rights of their own citizens.”  

 

Sam Paredes, on behalf of the Board of Directors for the Gun Owners Foundation, added: 

 

“We have said it before and we’ll say it again: states must come into compliance with Bruen, or we will make you.”   

 

GOA spokesmen are available for interviews.  Gun Owners of America is a nonprofit grassroots lobbying organization dedicated to protecting the right to keep and bear arms without compromise. GOA represents over two million members and activists. For more information, visit GOA’s Press Center.

-GOA-

 

 

 

Antonyuk-Application-to-Vacate-Stay-FINAL.pdf

[Euler]

On 12/21/2022 at 8:24 PM, mauserme said:

...

Earlier today, GOA and GOF asked SCOTUS to halt the 2nd Circuit's stay:

...

 

On January 11, the US Supreme Court declined to intervene. NY may continue to enforce the law while the litigation in the lower courts continues.

[Upholder]

 

[Upholder]

New filing by the plaintiffs:

 

https://assets.nationbuilder.com/firearmspolicyfoundation/pages/3970/attachments/original/1675273808/Antonyuk_v_Nigrelli_Plaintiffs-Appellees'_Answering_Brief.pdf

 

 

[Molly B.]

Wow, that's a good read!

[Flynn]

On 2/1/2023 at 4:54 PM, Molly B. said:

Wow, that's a good read!

 

I agree, it's frustrating and getting old that 'we' still have to argue not only against the State's means-ends hyperbole, but we have to apparently keep reminding the courts that means-ends is moot and that the 2nd is a Civil Right and thus infringment and/or denial of the right it is harm in itself.

[Howard Roark]

On 2/1/2023 at 4:54 PM, Molly B. said:

Wow, that's a good read!

 

Lot's of laughs in that one.  Like this sentence: 

 

"It is a small wonder that Chief Cecile does not also claim the 
Rosamond Zoo to be a “location providing health ... care or services” (N.Y. Penal Law 
§ 265.01-e(2)(b)), and thus a “sensitive location” under the CCIA, on the grounds that 
Zoo staff provide dental exams to camels and maternity services to birds by 
incubating their eggs."