Judge slams New York's attempt to create gun-free state

District Judge John Sinatra, a 2018 presidential candidate for President Trump and a member of the Federalist Society, has closed the door on efforts by anti-gun extremists in the New York state legislature to make the entire state a “gun-free zone.” Closed.

The New York state bill grew out of an emergency meeting called by New York Governor Kathy Hochul in response to the Supreme Court's decision in Bruen (New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen). Mr. Bruen declared New York City's “good cause” requirement for obtaining a security clearance to be unconstitutional. The decision also declared that laws that violate the Second Amendment can only be upheld if the government passing them can show “historical similarity” to the laws at the time the republic was founded.

The law, incorrectly named the Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA), effectively turned the entire state into a gun-free zone. This law prevents persons in possession of firearms from entering private property that is open to the public, and allows the owner to post signs that allow citizens in possession of firearms to enter the property. Unless explicitly and publicly declared.

Lawsuits followed, including the current case of Christian v. James. Brett Christian is a law-abiding gun owner living in the state with a concealed carry permit who works with the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) and the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) to ensure that even gas stations are safe. He complained that he could not go. unless the owner expressly authorizes you to enter the gas station with a firearm.

the judge threw out the law

Judge Sinatra wrote:

Newly enacted New York state law makes it a felony for a concealed carry license holder to possess a firearm on any private property unless the property owner involved actually authorizes such possession by signature or express consent It becomes.

New York's restrictions are unconstitutional, as determined by the Supreme Court's teachings in recent cases (including Bruen) dealing with the right of individual Americans to keep and bear arms.

For New York's law to be constitutional, New York would have to prove that “the CCIA is consistent with the state's historical tradition of sufficiently similar regulations.” New York failed that test here. ”

This is the second time New York State has lost on this very issue. Christian filed the complaint in September 2022. They argued that the law effectively prevented people from “legally carrying a firearm for self-defense” and “going about their daily lives.” In December 2022, Judge Sinatra issued a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the new law.

The state of New York, as expected, appealed Sinatra's ruling. However, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Sinatra's decision upholding the temporary injunction. In January 2024, the Second Circuit converted that temporary restraining order into a permanent restraining order. On March 1, Christian and his attorney filed a motion for summary judgment. They asked the court to declare the law unconstitutional and permanently block its implementation. Sinatra's ruling Thursday acknowledged that.

historical tradition

He took New York State to a cabin in the woods.

The historical traditions of this country do not condone such restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms. In fact, the right to self-defense is just as important and equally recognized on the vast private lands that are open to the public throughout New York State.

There is no real issue in court because there is a lack of historical tradition supporting state restrictions…This restriction does not allow individuals to keep and carry weapons for self-defense outside their homes and on private property open to the public. It violates the right to

Therefore, (Christian) judgment is required on this issue.

Sinatra reminded New York of the Bruen decision that supported his conclusion.

The (Supreme) Court reiterated that the Second Amendment is not a second-class right subject to lesser rules. The (Supreme) Court stated that it recognized that “there are no other constitutional rights that can be exercised only if an individual demonstrates some special need to a government official.”

When it comes to unpopular speech and the free exercise of religion, the First Amendment doesn't work that way.

The Sixth Amendment does not come into play when it comes to a defendant's right to confront witnesses.

And that's not how the Second Amendment works when it comes to public carry for self-defense.

He concluded his caning with this:

A fair reading of the historic statute (presented by the state of New York in defense of the law) shows that the proposed statute is a private property open to the public for the purpose of “passing a constitutional convention.” It becomes clear that the state's new restrictions on property are not “sufficiently similar” (quote from Bruen)…

Taken together, these laws diverge significantly from the tradition of supporting a complete ban on firearms on all lands open to the public.

likely to appeal

New York State boldly requested a stay “pending appeal.” Judge Sinatra laughed it off, saying, “Suspension of appeal is not justified…[Christians']constitutional rights are violated in the absence of an injunction.'' The state had suffered irreparable injury without a stay. Not certified. The preliminary injunction is effective from November 22, 2022. The balance of hardship and public interest will favor (Christians)… It is (Christians) who have achieved success on the basis of merit. ” Your request was denied.

Nevertheless, New York is likely to show its adamant stance by filing an appeal. The fight against the private ownership and use of firearms by law-abiding Americans will continue.