A federal district court on Thursday struck down part of a law that made it illegal to carry a firearm on private property without explicit, formal consent from the owner.
The United States District Court for the Western District of New York decision in christian vs james by finding that new york criminal law § 265.01-d Restrictions on “private property open to the public” are unconstitutional and prohibit enforcement by the state.
According to the ruling, the law made it a felony to possess a firearm on private property “unless such possession is authorized by the actual signed or express consent of the property owner involved.” In 2022, New York passed the Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA), which includes Section 265.01-d.
The plaintiff in the case, Brett Christian, argued that the wording of the state’s regulations precluded him from carrying a gun for self-defense. He also said New York state’s private property limits extend to public transportation, including parks, hiking trails, and public transportation such as the Niagara Frontier Transit Authority subway.
District Judge John Sinatra Jr. argued that the latter restriction contradicted “the nation’s historical tradition,” which “does not tolerate such restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms.” He prohibited New York State from enforcing concealed carry restrictions on “private property” that is open to the public.
🚨FPC Victory🚨
The judge in our Christian v. James NY Public Carry Ban case denied the state’s request to overturn New York City’s personal property non-compliance carry ban (Vampire Rule) and set aside (block) the decision for appeal. pic.twitter.com/Py5HutIEdo
— Firearms Policy Coalition (@gunpolicy) October 10, 2024
The judicial reasoning for the Sinatra decision was borrowed from: New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruenthe U.S. Supreme Court has Found New York state’s previous gun laws were deemed unconstitutional. The court’s opinion also established a historical test for all future gun control laws.
“To justify [Second Amendment] “Even with the regulations in mind, the government cannot simply claim that the regulations advance an important interest,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the court. “Rather, the government must prove that its regulations are consistent with this country’s historical tradition of firearms regulation. Only when firearms regulations are consistent with this country’s historical tradition can courts judge an individual’s We can conclude that the conduct falls outside the scope of the Second Amendment’s “disqualified command.”
plaintiff petitioned In January 2023, we asked the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the CCIA, but it was rejected. Justices Thomas and Samuel Alito expressed interest in the case, but argued that it must proceed in lower courts before it can be heard in the final court here. (Related: Maryland seeks to delay Supreme Court hearing on ‘assault weapons’ ban)
The Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) and the Second Amendment Foundation, both gun rights groups, celebrated the decision. james.
“This is another significant victory for Second Amendment rights, and another major loss for New York, authoritarian governments, and radical anti-rights groups like Everytown and Giffords,” FPC Chairman Brendan Combs said. According to press release.
“We are pleased with Judge Sinatra’s ruling,” said SAF Founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. said In a press release. “Once again, anti-gun advocates in the Empire State were restrained by judges who understand that the Second Amendment is not a second-class right.”
Democratic New York Governor Kathy Hochul signed Six new gun control bills will become law on Wednesday. Mr. Hochul also criticized the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling. blue enaccording to official records.
“And you know what happened when the Supreme Court overturned the concealed carry law and stripped the governor of his power to keep his people safe,” Hochul said. “When the Supreme Court ruled, we didn’t throw up our hands and surrender. We fought back. We doubled down. We legislated.”
The “law” that Hochul was referring to was the CCIA. Following another U.S. Supreme Court ruling striking down parts of that law in 2022. new york state claimed in the submitted documents The bill argued that it was based on a colonial-era legal precedent that prohibited gun sales to “American Indian tribes,” or “standards of good moral character.” Gun rights groups said the state’s logic is based on past laws aimed at suppressing minority rights.
