Christian v James-- NY Vampire Rule & Carry in Public Parks

[Yeti]

 

"In this case of Christian versus Leticia James involving the Second Amendment Foundation, congratulations to them. Involving the

Firearms Policy Coalitions, congratulations to them as well as to Brett Christian, the plaintiff in the case. So, congratulations to all of them

for winning and knocking out once and for all New York State's version of the so-called vampire rule."

 

 

Edited August 5, 2026 at 03:11 AM by Yeti
Title expanded to include carry in parks

[Euler]

Although the 2nd Circuit knocked down NY's vampire rule, the other provision challenged in this case is a ban of carry in public parks.

On July 28, Christian asked to extend the deadline to petition the Supreme Court for certiorari on the ban of carry in public parks. (shadow docket)

Motion said:

...
... In particular, the question presented is whether New York's ban on carrying firearms in public parks is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment, either facially or as applied. In New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, this Court was clear: New York could not, consistent with the Second Amendment, "declare the island of Manhattan a 'sensitive place '" where firearms may be restricted, "simply because it is crowded and protected generally by the New York City Police Department." ... Despite this clear instruction, New York proceeded to pass an omnibus firearms law that effectively declared Manhattan (and much of the rest of the state) a "sensitive place" piece-by-piece, rather than wholesale. Applicants challenged this effort as unconstitutional and inconsistent with this Court's Second Amendment precedents.
...

On July 29, Sotomayor extended the deadline to September 16.

Edited August 5, 2026 at 03:28 AM by Euler

[Euler]

On September 16, Christian filed the petition. FPC and SAF are also petitioners.

On September 18, the Court created the docket.

Petition said:

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

1. Whether New York's ban on the possession of firearms in public parks violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments.
2. Whether the Second Circuit erred in rejecting Petitioners' challenge to New York's undifferentiated ban on possession of firearms in public parks based on a conclusion that history would support banning possession of firearms in urban parks.
3. Whether the Second Circuit erred in holding that firearms laws from the latter half of the 19th century can establish a tradition of regulation limiting the scope of the right to keep and bear arms in the absence of historical support from the Founding era.

...
New York has criminalized the peaceable possession of arms in every public park across the State, from Central Park in Manhattan to bike trails in Buffalo and even remote state forests and recreational areas. Although the question of arms in public parks is itself cert-worthy, this case also presents two fundamental methodological questions flowing directly from this Court's Second Amendment precedents which have caused widespread confusion and error in the lower courts.

On the first of these methodological questions, the Second Circuit below, along with the Fourth and Ninth Circuits, have analyzed "facial" Second Amendment challenges in a manner that is incompatible with this Court's precedents and that effectively renders firearm laws immune from facial attack. Rather than analyzing whether the rule established by a challenged law violates the Second Amendment, these courts, misconstruing this Court's decision in Rahimi, have asked instead whether any of the conduct swept in by a challenged law potentially could be regulated consistent with the Second Amendment, even if the defining character of that conduct is not specifically targeted by the challenged law. And if the answer is yes, they have rejected the plaintiff's challenge. In the decision below, for example, rather than asking whether history would support banning firearms in parks, the Second Circuit concluded that it was enough to hold that history supports banning firearms in urban parks. While Petitioners disagree with the historical premise, even granting it the conclusion is incorrect -- to support a flat ban on possession of firearms in parks, New York must establish a historical basis for banning firearms in parks. By contrast, the Illinois Supreme Court has taken an approach that is more faithful to this Court's decisions.

On the second of these methodological issues, the Second, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits permit regulations from the latter half of the nineteenth century to satisfy the step two historical inquiry under Bruen even when that evidence conflicts with Founding-era evidence. The Third, Fifth, and Eighth Circuits, on the other hand, have prioritized the historical understanding at the Founding. In both Bruen and Rahimi, this Court identified (but had no reason to resolve) whether courts should prioritize 1791 or 1868 when the evidence from those two historical touchstones point in opposite directions. Below, the Second Circuit privileged regulations from the latter half of the nineteenth century despite the acknowledged absence of any Founding-era tradition of banning arms in public parks. The court was untroubled because the Second Circuit, along with some of its sister Circuits, puts such evidence on (at least) equal footing with Founding-era evidence.

Finally, the lower courts have struggled to define whether and how state and local governments may prohibit the peaceable carriage of arms in the ordinary public spaces of daily American life. This case provides a case in point, where the Second Circuit upheld a sweeping ban on peaceable possession in all public parks, including wide swaths of rural space. As this Court repeatedly has explained, "parks ... have immemorially been held in trust for the use of the public and, time out of mind, have been used for purposes of assembly, communicating thoughts between citizens, and discussing public questions." ... There is no historical basis for barring the peaceable carry of arms in such quintessentially public places.
...

When I read it, I thought the reference to the Illinois Supreme Court could be a reference to People v Chairez (2018) which enjoined the prohibition of otherwise legal carry within 1000 feet of a park. However, the only Illinois Supreme Court authority cited (elsewhere in the petition) explicitly is People v Burns (2015), which challenged the flat ban on carry [720 ILCS 5/24-1.6(a)(1), 5/24-1.6(a)(3)(A)]. People v Aguilar (2013) had already found the ban unconstitutional in light of Moore v Madigan (2012), which gave us concealed carry (thanks to an organization known as IllinoisCarry, of which you might have heard). However, Illinois argued that the (pre-Moore) ban was still constitutional as applied to felons. The Illinois Supreme Court rejected that argument, because there's nothing in the text of the statute that limits it to felons. Thus the flat ban is facially unconstitutional. (Obviously, the statute has been amended since then to reference the Concealed Carry Act.)

Edited September 22, 2026 at 05:07 AM by Euler

[Euler]

On September 24, James asked to extend his time to respond from October 19 to December 3.

[Euler]

On September 25, the Court granted the motion to extend.