One would think that the U.S. Supreme Court would be interested in considering the constitutionality of New York’s restrictive carry law since the law was hastily written and passed because of the court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. In fact, at the time, the law was referred to by many as the Bruen-response law, and in many ways was more restrictive than the original law was.
Alas, on Monday, SCOTUS, without giving a reason, declined to take up the case concerning the law, which not only set up vast swaths of the state as “sensitive places” where carry is restricted but also required handgun owners to prove “good moral character” before purchasing a gun. Because the court declined to hear the case, an earlier ruling from the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals will remain in place.
The 2nd Circuit Court had ruled in October 2024 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.
In December 2023, 2nd Circuit Court had ruled that the law was constitutional, and plaintiffs then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. But rather than taking up the case then, the Supreme Court ordered the 2nd Circuit to reconsider the case in light of its decision in the Rahimi case. In its subsequent ruling, the appeals court said the Supreme Court analysis in the Rahimi case supported its prior conclusions.
At the time of the second 2nd Circuit ruling, Erich Pratt, president of Gun Owners of America (GOA), had 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.”
Understandably, Pratt was again frustrated with the Supreme Court’s decision to not hear the case.
“While we are disappointed by the Supreme Court’s decision not to take this case, we will never stop fighting to defend the rights of gun owners across the country,” he said.
Of course, Democratic New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, who just signed three more gun control measures into law last week, was ecstatic to hear about the court’s decision, stating, “New York’s strong gun safety laws save lives.”
So, which is worse? … The SC refusing to hear a case, or hearing it and having “The Supreme Squishies” siding with the lib judges and sealing the deal ??
unicorn whisperer,
See my comment below for two potentially legitimate reasons why the Supremes may have refused this case.
The real problem, in my opinion, is that states can enact heinous laws WAY faster than courts can negate them AND state legislators/governors never face any sanctions for laws that the courts negate.
As everyone should know, state constitutions are the Supreme Law of the Land in their respective states and the U.S. Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land in individual states (where applicable) and United States federal jurisdictions. Legislatures, governors, and presidents who pass laws which violate their respective constitutions are violating the Supreme Law of the Land. That being the case, lawmakers should face significant civil and/or criminal sanctions for said violations. And THAT would hopefully reduce the frequency/number of heinous laws. Of course such an arrangement requires government limiting government which rarely happens throughout World History.
Good moral character like the thugs who stormed Ruby Ridge, Waco, murdered Bryan Malinowski, etc?
It all circles back to the bigoted mentality that brought Gun Control into existence by determining Slaves, Catholics, Indians and others did not possess good moral character to bear arms.
What happened and will continue to happen as long as courts blindly cater to Gun Control instead of ever being asked to take into account Historical Analogies Confirm Gun Control in any shape, matter or form is Rooted In Racism and Genocide.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=ZFEz3Bt9hCw&si=PcoCKBRkfsYwsDLz
I can only wonder if the U.S. Supreme Court thought that the case was too broad since the case apparently hinged on two facets: the “good moral character” requirement and too many/inappropriate “sensitive places”.
The U.S. Supreme Court may have also rejected the case because History and tradition actually allow for a “good moral character” pre-requisite. Having said that, History and tradition do not allow a state to enact subjective notions of “good moral character”. Nor do History and tradition allow a state to require citizens to somehow prove that they are of “good moral character”. In other words History and tradition would only allow a state to deny the right to convicted criminals. Thus, the Supremes may have denied this case because the plaintiffs were arguing against “good moral character” rather than arguing against any requirements beyond a clean criminal record.
The more likely reason is that the order appealed from was an interim order, not a final judgment. Of late, the court has been turning away all non-final cases raising 2A issues. Antonyuk will be back after final judgment is entered. Meanwhile, it has continued to kick the can down the road on the Maryland assault weapons ban. That case was up before, reversed and remanded for reconsideration after Bruen. The Second Circuit sent it back to the trial court for fact finding, and after judgment was entered there, it was appealed and the Second Circuit again affirmed the ban, using almost the same language as its prior opinion. The Supreme Court is the final stopping point. If review is not granted, the ban will remain. The cert petition has been continued to the next conference numerous time for reasons unstated. I suspect that the Court is either waiting to kick the case into the next session, or it is waiting for another case that is working its way through the system.
Mark N.,
Ah, your commentary also makes sense. You provided additional information and details of which I was totally unaware. Thank you for your commentary.
I was going to say I wasn’t expecting to hear anything from this case for a while as it is one of several the 2nd circuit is sitting on but that covers it better.
Proving good moral character.
Yeah Russia has that too to own a gun.
Yeah, Russia thinks Putin has good moral character…SMH.
Supreme Court Jesters!
A core of leftism since the 50’s has been opposition to being held to a vague and churchy standard of “good moral character.” Virtually everything they hold dear is something that somebodys stuffy dad disapproved of at some point.
So, I have to wonder, why aren’t they all up in arms about this?
Oh, because of that other core of leftism: total state control.
Well, at least the Supremes allow us to send violent illegals to El Salvadore. Hey, maybe we can encourage the building of a special “vacation wing” down there. We could call it the “Justice Vacation Timeshare Resort” or something like that. Hey, the prisoners could be the landscapers, housekeepers, cooks, and security guards.
Okay, maybe not.
SCOTUS is actually SDCOTUS.
“NY Gov Hochul was ecstatic to hear about the court’s decision, stating, “New York’s stupid gun safety laws save the lives of criminals!”
/ fixed it