One of the provisions of New York’s Bruen response law enacted after the state’s may-issue carry permitting scheme was struck down last year was a signage requirement. Unlike most states, rather than property owners posting that concealed carry was prohibited, concealed carry was presumptively banned in places open to the public unless property owners affirmatively posted that it was allowed.
A number of consolidated cases challenged that and other requirements such as the mandate that permit applicants give issuers access to their social media accounts. Today, a three-judge panel of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals struck down those provisions, leaving other parts of the Bruen response law in place.
As the Second Amendment Foundation said . . .
A federal appeals court has struck down a New York state law requiring private property owners to post signs allowing concealed carry on property open to the public as part of a massive decision dealing with several separate challenges of the Empire State’s post-Bruen gun control legislation.
The Second Amendment Foundation was involved in two of the four cases decided by the court in its 261-page ruling. They are known as Hardaway v. Chiumento and Christian v. Chiumento. The cases were before the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals.
The Christian case challenged the signage requirement. The court noted that the regulated conduct—carrying a firearm for personal protection on private property—“falls within the Second Amendment right to carry.” Thus, the requirement to post signs allowing carry on private property open to the public was struck down. The restriction carried with it a criminal penalty of up to four years imprisonment and was graded as a Class E felony – which would strip the individual of their right to keep and bear arms in perpetuity.
The Hardaway case challenged a tenet of the law prohibiting carry in places of worship. The complaint became moot when the legislature changed the law after SAF sued to allow people such as plaintiff Jimmie Hardaway to carry in his church. In both cases, SAF was joined by the Firearms Policy Coalition.
There was another major win for gun rights in the lengthy decision, in a case not involving SAF. The court struck down a requirement to allow government access to private social media accounts in order to apply for a carry license.
“Our challenges were narrowly constructed, allowing us to win a small but significant victory in the Christian case,” noted SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “Because the legislature changed the law after our lawsuit was filed in the Hardaway case, we consider that a victory as well.”
“These are just two more examples of SAF carrying out its mission to win firearms freedom, one lawsuit at a time,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb.
FPC WIN: In a 261-page opinion, the Second Circuit has struck down New York’s social media disclosure requirement for carry permits, its default private property gun ban, and part of its church carry ban. https://t.co/Rk8WHlo2MI pic.twitter.com/7ZdKBsmrC1
— Firearms Policy Coalition (@gunpolicy) December 8, 2023
Good the 1st 4th and 5th amendments are still in effect.
Well slowly being clawed back anyway. It’s a good win but a lot more to do and a whole lot more pending.
Yes it’s a very long struggle. When you let your guard down. And let them steal any and everything they can get away with. Celebrate this success. But keep fighting.
Got to see her rage tweet/state news press release about us right wing extremists who dare defy her edicts that are worse than what the supreme court slapped down in the first place. Today was a good day
btw
I’m not saying you let your guard down. My comments are for those that did. And then they wonder what happened to the freedom they use to have???
No worries came through on my end and it needs to be said for a large plurality if not majority of gun owners in all states anyway.
No matter how many times it’s sugarcoated and repackaged Gun Control always circles back to its Roots in Racism, Slavery, etc. And how for the most part does it do that? Gun Control History illiteracy…that’s how.
When state legislatures enact ordinances that attempt to infringe or deny a US citizen any right enshrined in the Bill of Rights, there should be consequences leveled at the individual legislators who vote for them. Denial of constitutionally protected rights is a crime, and that position was reinforced by the enactment and adoption of the 14th amendment in 1868. Upon signing such a law that deprives US individuals of guaranteed liberties, the executive and the legislators that voted for it are guilty of a crime against the People and their rights to certain liberties. That crime should be punishable under law, and treated as a felony for the individuals attempting to violate the restrictions on government in the Constitution.
The Bill of Rights is misnamed. It should be called the Bill of Limitations on Government Authority, related to individual citizens. The Bill of Rights is not the source of authority for the rights of US individual citizens; that authority emanates from the Devine Creator which preceded the Constitution and will exist with or without government approval for all time.
Oh lord. Its definitely does in your book
That was reply to debbi
“Good the 1st 4th and 5th amendments are still in effect.”
And awaiting further appeals.
The private property that is open to the general public provision is a big one for those of us with CCW’s in NY. At least we can carry in stores, gas stations, etc again.
In the south, those signs don’t mean dick. None of them carry any force of law. You carry where you want to carry, less gov’t buildings and large public gatherings like football games. (schools go with gov’t buildings) I carry everywhere I go. If they want to ask me to leave they are free to do so. And I will spend my money with someone else.
The same type of scenario happened back during Covid. Most businesses in GA were smart enough to realize that customers were not interested in stupid, worthless mask mandates. Those stores who decided to enforce them are no longer in business. Those who didn’t gained a bunch of new customers from the ones that did. All in all, it improved a great deal of businesses by riding us of the idiots.
Drove business (and businesses) from my state to your whole region on all levels let alone individual businesses with whatever rules selected.
I split time between NY and South Carolina – The No Firearm signs in SC are enforced as long as they are consistent with the law. My instructor made this clear when I took the course there “We don’t have alot of gun laws in SC, but the ones we do have we take seriously”.
In NYS under the recent laws, the signs were opposite yours . One couldn’t carry there unless the sign said you could ,to,do otherwise which I did , was a felony .
The misleading picture of a sign leading off the story lends to the confusion here ,I suspect.
Friday’s decision sets aside rulings that had struck down gun possession bans at many locations deemed “sensitive places,” including behavior health centers, public parks, zoos, theaters, conference centers and places licensed for on-premise alcohol consumption.
The 2nd Circuit also said a lower court was wrong to invalidate the CCIA’s requirement that concealed carry permit applicants show “good moral character.”
“The CCIA’s definition of ‘character’ is a proxy for dangerousness: whether the applicant, if licensed to carry a firearm, is likely to pose a danger to himself, others, or public safety,” the three-judge panel said in its ruling.
“And there is widespread consensus (notwithstanding some disputes at the margins) that restrictions which prevent dangerous individuals from wielding lethal weapons are part of the nation’s tradition of firearm regulation,” they continued. “We therefore cannot conclude that every denial on grounds of ‘good moral character’ as defined by New York will violate the Second Amendment, though various avenues lie open for as-applied challenges.”
It would seem that “good moral character” has been limited to whether the applicant is a danger to himself or others, a pretty high bar to its application in the vast majority of cases. Still, allowing this to stand will likely result in abuses, especially in NYC.
The 2nd is basically saying “NY is still May Issue”. Not good. But again, at least I get to carry legally again in all the places I was carrying legally for the 10 years prior to them passing that disgrace of a law.
Was this an injunction appeal hearing?
Yes.
Ah gotcha so still at a lower court argument that hasn’t been fully decided yet and pending a later appeal to circuit when they try typical NY shenanigans. Didn’t recognize the names but these would be newer (relatively) ones
Connecting social media to the 2nd Amendment is such a bad idea to start with. Not only could you blame Facebook for people getting guns but Facebook would have to remain running from now to the end of time while forcing every citizen to use it. The whole thing is crazy.
I’ll bet Hochul is bending over her caldron now trying to come up with something else. A little more eye of newt and toe of frog, a hair from the head of a newly minted trans person, and voila’ …. People no longer need to post signs specifically allowing carry, but you need to get all the building occupants permission in writing and have it notarized and pay a $100.00 fee per occupant. This includes your own house if anyone else lives there.”
This is off-topic but I suggest folks check out the over hour and a half interview with Alex Jones on the Tucker Carlson YOUTUBE channel.
Alex Jones has been “that mirror on the wall”. Telling a truth and nobody’s been wanting to listen. And he explains his sources. Many are reports written years ago by the government.
Illinois to the Supreme Court: Our Citizens Can Just Deal With It.
Washington Gun Law President, William Kirk, discusses the memorandum filed by the State of Illinois to the United State Supreme Court in the matter of Bevis v. Naperville. Listen, we know that the State government of Illinois hates its citizens, but this memorandum just proves that. The arguments made by the State of Illinois are so disingenuous and vile that one has to ask how the hell can anyone even live in that state anymore? So learn what the State of Illinois has to say about their own citizens.
EXCELLENT NEWS !!! (next strike down the entire Hughes Act that dumbass Reagan signed).
gra…democRats applaud your Reagan bashing…take a bow.
Did Reagan sign the Hughes Act into law? Is it a bad law? That’s the point.
That is good news.
Leave it up to NY to set up un-Constitutional laws, get them struck down and strengthen the 2ndA.
Worst case that is how things end up over here. It would be nice being able to retire here with similar rights as the South, Midwest, or Planes but if not at least there will be options that keep getting better in free America.
Keep the faith.
Going to be interesting how the Jewish community decides to vote come next election. Last go around, Zeldin got the backing of the Jewish community and was the closest to bet a Democrat in like 15 years.
More than a few polls show Blacks, Hispanics and Asians ditching the Democrat party for Republican. Downstate just might join with Upstate and go red.
Failed Democrat polices are showing on the national stage along with the state level. Heard on the radio of an ad of some guy running for some county seat, claiming he kept illegal immigrants out. I think he was a Democrat.
Will one ever be able to conceal carry on public roads in NYC, like around Times Square? I know you don’t live there, but you’re familiar with it.
“It would be nice being able to retire here with similar rights as […] ”
My uncle fled NYC in 1932-ish. Gangsters took over completely, and the law would not let you have a gun, because the law *wanted* the gangsters to win, and the gangsters knew it – is what he said. He remembered the passing of the Sullivan Act and Prohibition. and witnessed the entire contraband-fueled process of the takeover.
Absolutely no offense intended, but y’all ain’t been making much progress on getting your rights back since then. Probably oughta start shopping around. If you are subject to or likely to be subject to weather-related arthritic pain, I recommend somewhere west of the Mississippi River.
I do not know why, but my ibuprofen intake is sharply reduced in AZ, TX, CO, even LA…
As opposed to GA, FL, or AL.
Your results may vary.
Can get guns now and looking increasingly likely they will have several more losses before the end of the decade. No offense taken but too early to quit when some improvements are well within striking distance and if I can get a pension out of it the state can pay for my unSAFE guns for years to come.
We have considered moving a few times.
But our priority would be access to fresh water. That rules out most of the states West of the Mississippi.
The Marine Corps has sent me to several places where water was more valuable than gold. When I got back from the sandbox for the last time, I picked a place where water is generally not an issue. I have three sources of water, two of which are not dependent on electricity.
But, but AOC is going to put up a satellite that beams solar power to giant desalination plants in CA and TX! Just kidding.
Water is a good priority to have, especially with a young family. Personally, I can get by on very little, but hate it. Western edge of the Mississippi drain would still be good, IMO.
Family, livestock, gardens, crops, wood lot, wild game.
Sheeesh the anti gun 2nd circuit playing some weird game?!?!?!?! They NEVER would have ruled that unless Hochel and the left agreed to it. So alot of legal BS. What does it mean. You can carry in church and in stores unless they post you can’t, but not in public places?!?!?!?!?!? I can carry in a restaurant and a mall but still not a town library?!?!?!? That is totally confusing and could lead to alot of misunderstandings!!!
Love the SAF
I find it amusing that the headlines when this was first released made it sound as f it were a success for NY–but those headlines later changed when the ramifications of the decision were better understood as reviving concealed carry in NYS in most places except those particular places listed in the decision that left out business and private property, and confirming a shall issue regime required by Bruen with the only change being that persons who are objectively a danger to themselves or others could be prevented from obtaining a license. If the anti-2A 2d will goes this far, I hope that the Ninth is paying attention when the same issues are litigated in response to SB-2, a nea twin of the NYS bill.
In a 261-page opinion, the Second Circuit has struck down New York’s social media disclosure requirement for carry permits
Gawd, lawyers. Half their law school classes are on how to milk a one paragraph statement into 1,000 billable hours.
New York commies need struck down period.
This decision while remanind to the District Court for further hearings and stricking down certain provision will not stop this case from ultimately landing in the Supreme Court.
Comments are closed.