Gun rights advocates looking to overturn New York’s “sensitive places” law have suffered a big loss in a Manhattan courtroom.
The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Thursday in Antonyuk et al. v. James that the law banning people from carrying weapons in locations such as schools, parks, theaters and bars is constitutional under the Second Amendment. The court also declared constitutional the state’s restrictive “good moral character” requirement for getting a concealed carry permit.
Last December, the 2nd Circuit Court ruled that the law was constitutional, and plaintiffs then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. But rather than taking up the case, the Supreme Court ordered the 2nd Circuit to reconsider the case in light of its decision in the recent Rahimi case. In its Thursday decision, the appeals court said the Supreme Court analysis in the Rahimi case supported its prior conclusions.
Erich Pratt, president of Gun Owners of America (GOA), expressed frustration with the ruling since the Supreme Court had sent the case back for reconsideration.
“The 2nd Circuit got it wrong the first time, SCOTUS told them so and said try again, and this nearly identical ruling is a slap in the face to the Justices and every gun owner across New York,” Pratt in a press release. “We will continue the fight against Gov. Hochul and anti-gun legislators in Albany until New Yorkers can finally carry for self-defense without infringement.”
Of course, New York Attorney General Letitia James had grand praise for the court following the ruling.
“This decision is another victory in our effort to protect all New Yorkers from the scourge of gun violence,” James said in a released statement. “Commonsense gun safety legislation helps protect New Yorkers.”
Earlier this month a district court in New York permanently enjoined the state’s law banning guns on private property open to the public without express consent of the owner.
In the case Christian v. James, U.S. District Judge John. L. Sinatra of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York wrote in the ruling that the state’s arguments concerning past “similar” laws weren’t convincing enough.
“Regulation in this area is permissible only if the government demonstrates that the new enactment is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of sufficiently analogous regulations,” the court stated in the ruling. “Indeed, property owners have the right to exclude. But the state may not unilaterally exercise that right and, thereby, interfere with the long-established Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens who seek to carry for self-defense on private property open to the public.”
