Yesterday, New York’s Attorney General Letitia James filed an appeal to keep the State’s controversial Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA) law in effect while the court determines if aspects of it violate the Constitution. This appeal is in response to last weeks ruling by a Judge who issued an injunction that put a pause on parts of the CIAA while the court hears the case. The case is Antonyuk v. Hochul.
New York Concealed Carry Improvement Act —
The CCIA was the anti-gun, New York legislature’s response to the Supreme Court ruling that the state’s arbitrary means test for issuing a concealed carry permit was unconstitutional. The case is New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen.
Everyone expected anti-gun, legislators and political leaders to respond to the ruling by crafting new restrictions on the rights of a law-abiding citizen of the United States to carry a firearm for self defense. New York didn’t wait and passed the CCIA during an emergency legislative session called by New York Governor Kathy Hochul.
To say the CCIA contains nothing less than laws meant to punish law-abiding citizens and hinder their ability to carry a firearm legally is not hyperbole. The proponents followed the same playbook of gaslighting the public and conflating legal gun owners with the armed criminals who they actively help remain on the streets. They claim the new law is necessary for public safety, without explaining how restricting where concealed carriers can carry a gun legally would have stopped a single crime.
You can learn just how bad the law, which went live on September 1st, is in this post we published last month.
The Antonyuk v. Hochul Case —
On October 6th, Chief Judge Glenn Suddaby of the U.S. District Court in Syracuse issued a temporary injunction blocking parts of the CCIA while the court can rule on the law’s constitutionality. Judge Suddaby’s ruling blocked these parts of the law:
- that applicants must provide a list of current and former social media accounts
- that applicants must provide evidence showing their ‘good moral character’
- city subways as prohibited ‘sensitive areas’
- Times Square as a prohibited ‘sensitive area’
It appears, considering NYSPRA v Bruen alone, that including social media accounts or proof of ‘good moral character’ is the very thing the Supreme Court clearly determined as an unconstitutional requirement as part of a concealed carry permit process. As far as the ‘sensitive areas’ issue, the state can’t possibly make the case that it is in the public’s interest to prohibit concealed carry in the subway system. To the contrary, if there was one location that people need to have an ability to protect themselves is in the lawless New York subway system.
The Judge left the CCIA’s concealed carry restriction in courts, schools and polling places to remain in effect while the legal process continues.
Attorney General Letitia James —
In her appeal to the New York-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, AG James says that by blocking portions of the law, the judge would create confusion and inconsistent enforcement of the law. She said:
The serious risk of irreparable harm to public safety and the possibility of regulatory chaos necessitates an immediate appeal. As the data confirm, more guns carried in more places by more people result in more crime, violence, and homicide. In addition, state and local officials have spent significant resources implementing the CCIA and informing New Yorkers about the new law, only to have [Judge Glenn Suddaby’s temporary injunction] sow confusion among the public, licensing officials, and law enforcement. The purpose of interim relief is to preserve the status quo, not to create turmoil during the pendency of litigation.
Ideally, the legislative process would include consultation with attorneys who would advise of the constitutionality of the proposed law. Legislatures typically wouldn’t push ahead on laws that will almost certainly end up in court. But the gun control debate is based almost completely on emotion and a desire to harass and ultimately disarming of the people. So, the ends justify the means, and chilling of the Second Amendment, even temporarily, is a victory.
As of now, the court has not responded with a decision on AG James’ appeal.
If you like this content, please consider downloading our Gun Tools mobile App. Among other things, the app allows you to stay up to date with our written content, podcasts, and access a reciprocity map, track your training and access our online store. Give it a go. I think you’ll find it provides more than any other app out there.