The decision leaves in place a lower court ruling that struck down some provisions in the state law but upheld others.
The U.S. Supreme Court on April 7 denied a challenge to a restrictive New York state gun law that was passed to counter the court’s landmark gun ruling in 2022.
The court’s decision not to hear Antonyuk v. James came in an unsigned order.
The Supreme Court ruling leaves intact a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit decision from October 2024 that struck down some provisions in the state law but upheld others.
The Supreme Court ruled in June 2022 in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen that there was a constitutional right to carry a gun outside the home for self-defense.
Specifically, the court invalidated the state’s requirement that a carry permit applicant must demonstrate a special need for self-defense.
New York Gov. Kathy Hochul denounced the Bruen decision at the time, calling it “a reckless decision … senselessly sending us backward and putting the safety of our residents in jeopardy.”
New York legislators responded to the ruling by enacting the sweeping Concealed Carry Improvement Act, which came into force on Sept. 1, 2022.
The law inhibits the public-carry right articulated in Bruen by designating much of the Empire State as so-called sensitive areas, or gun-free zones, making them off-limits to concealed weapons. Critics said there were so many prohibited places that it would be hard for carry permit holders to go about their daily business in public.
Airports, establishments that serve alcohol, day care facilities, playgrounds, schools, entertainment venues, libraries, hospitals, houses of worship, polling locations, public demonstrations and rallies, public transit, and Times Square, a tourist mecca in the borough of Manhattan, are on the list.
The state law also requires carry permit applicants to show “good moral character,” take a gun safety course, and provide information from their social media accounts for background checks.
In its ruling, the Second Circuit upheld the good moral character requirement, finding that the act’s definition of “character” was “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.”
