NY carry restrictions might be headed for SCOTUS

NY carry restrictions might be headed for SCOTUS
AP Photo/Patrick Semansky, File

The state of New York responded to seeing its carry restrictions upended by the Supreme Court by…enacting a lot more carry restrictions. Sure, they had to issue permits, but they tripped over themselves to figure out any way they could avoid issuing them as well as doing everything they could to make them about useless.

We all know that went against the standards laid out in the Bruen decision, but it seems New York Gov. Kathy Hochul and her buddies in the legislature didn’t care about that.

Now, though, it looks like New York’s carry restrictions may be shortlived.

Challenging new restrictions on who gets to carry a firearm in New York state, a group of gun owners asked the Supreme Court on Wednesday to intervene.

Gun rights advocates claim the law deprives them of their Second Amendment rights.

“Falling far short of complying with this Court’s Bruen decision, the CCIA instead extinguishes the right of ‘ordinary, law-abiding citizens … to carry handguns publicly for their self-defense,’” Stephen Stamboulieh, an attorney at Stamboulieh Law representing the gun owners, wrote Wednesday in an application to the court for emergency relief.

Led by Ivan Antonyuk, the gun owners went to the high court after the Second Circuit blocked a federal judge’s ruling that struck down parts of the law. As the state’s appeal proceeded, the law is allowed to take effect.

“The CCIA stands in direct defiance to Bruen’s central holding that governments cannot keep ‘ordinary, law-abiding citizen[s]’ with ‘ordinary self-defense needs from carrying arms in public for that purpose,’” Stamboulieh wrote. “The Second Circuit’s stay of the district court’s preliminary injunction allows New York’s novel, anti-Bruen law to strip New Yorkers of their right to keep and bear arms in a sweeping and unprecedented way, along with the collateral damage of violating multiple other constitutional provisions.”

Describing the ruling as unreasoned and knee-jerk, the firearm owners say the Second Circuit should have learned its lesson after the court’s repudiation in Bruen.

One would think.

The problem is that New York didn’t exactly get what Justice Clarence Thomas laid down in this case. This is a classic case of trying to adhere to the letter of a ruling while going in the exact opposite direction from its spirit.

Doing that, however, is a recipe for seeing yourself get smacked down yet again by the Court.

New York had to know that a challenge was coming. They also had to know that the Court wasn’t going to be likely to take the state thumbing its nose at them particularly well. What they actually thought they’d accomplish is beyond me.

Honestly, if they were trying to force the Court’s hand to rule and solidify an opposition to carry restrictions, I can’t imagine what all else they might do to make that happen. That’s how idiotic this whole thing is.

And we know Hochul isn’t a fan of the Second Amendment, so this ain’t that.

Gun Owners of America issued a press release on Wednesday about the filing:

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.”   

Regardless, it’s now in the Supreme Court’s hands. We’ll have to wait and see how that goes.