Judge disarms NY Concealed Carry Improvement Act

ALBANY, N.Y. (NEXSTAR) — In Buffalo on October 10, U.S. District Judge John Sinatra, Jr. declared unconstitutional a New York law that outlawed bearing arms on private property without the consent of the property owner. Extensively citing recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions, Sinatra ruled that the Second Amendment lets New Yorkers carry firearms even in such scenarios, so long as it's private property that's open to the public.

The judge issued an injunction against enforcing Section 265.01-D under part 3, title P, article 265 of New York's penal law. You can read the decision at the bottom of this story.

The law made it a crime to be armed at a "restricted location" unless they had permission or clear signage allowed it. Instead, now private property owners—if they're open to the public—would have to opt-in to such a ban. Their policies and signage can still expressly forbid guns.

“Despite Kathy Hochul and radical New York Democrats' repeated attempts to target law-abiding New York gun owners, today’s ruling from the Western District of New York delivers a win for New Yorkers’ Second Amendment rights, striking down Kathy Hochul’s unconstitutional overreach by simply applying recent common sense rulings of the United States Supreme Court," said Republican Congressmember Elise Stefanik, representing New York's 21st Congressional District in a statement from October 11.

The 2022 lawsuit against New York State, "Christian v. James," challenged parts of the Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA). The suit argued that the law violated the U.S. Constitution by unfairly stripping the right to self-defense from concealed carriers performing everyday activities on bike trails, public transit, and trips to the gas station or hardware store.

The law featured specific carve-outs, like those for hunters, police, and security guards. Gun safety and Second Amendment advocates alike continue to wait for a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruling on the constitutionality of banning guns at public parks.

Sinatra applied Supreme Court decisions "Heller," "McDonald," "Bruen," and "Rahimi" to decide "Christian v. James." "Heller," for example, applied the Second Amendment to personal self-defense, not just to arming militias.

"McDonald" extended self-defense as a basic right in all 50 states through the Fourteenth Amendment. On page 14 of "Christian vs. James," Sinatra interpreted "McDonald" to mean, "Public safety concerns are no reason to alter the Constitutional analysis."

"Bruen" rejected a New York requirement that concealed carry applicants show proper cause, affirming that law-abiding citizens have the right to bear arms in self-defense at home and in public. The Court decided here that gun legislators must couch their regulations in historical traditions.

"Rahimi," meanwhile, supported a law blocking guns from people with domestic violence restraining orders who represent a credible threat. It fit into a historical regulatory framework.

So, New York cited historical regulations to defend the ban, characterized as a common-sense safety measure. The defense pointed to Florida, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia, and even old laws from New York. But the judge poked holes in the precedents they presented.

In 1715, Maryland banned some from carrying guns on private land—to stop poaching, Sinatra contextualized. In 1721, Pennsylvania aimed at hunters on private land. He determined that the New Jersey law from 1722 and a New York law from 1763 also targeted hunters or animal populations rather than guns.

Similarly, the judge interpreted a slew of laws from the late 1800s as dealing with trespassers and hunters alike. As a whole, the judge decided that these older, narrower laws concerned isolated situations, unlike New York's more generalized ban.

According to the ruling, the state can't prove a long-standing national tradition of a total ban on firearms in public spaces. The judge noted that the state had no historical examples of someone charged under one of those laws for being armed in a private space that's open to the public.

Sinatra referred to another court ruling—"Antonyuk" from the Second Circuit— when explaining how private land-use laws don't support preventing self-defense in public. And he noted that the Bruen Court requires examples of a broad national tradition.

"The State, moreover, has not met its burden of showing continuity or endurance (of any sort) over time," Sinatra wrote. "The enactments—considered together—are a far cry from a tradition supporting a universal ban of firearms on all property open to the public."

Sinatra noted in a footnote that he disagreed with New York's argument that he should adopt a broader interpretation of historical terms. He also denied the state's request for a 14-day stay to appeal.

“This is yet another important victory for Second Amendment rights and another major loss for New York, authoritarian governments, and radical anti-rights organizations like Everytown and Giffords,” said Brandon Combs, president of the Firearms Policy Coalition, one of the plaintiffs in "Christian vs. James."

Meanwhile, the state legislature and Gov. Kathy Hochul are enacting more gun control measures. The day before Sinatra's ruling dropped, she signed six bills into law in New York City.

Take a look at the Judge Sinatra's ruling below: