New York’s new concealed carry law can remain in effect for now, court rules
A federal appeals court has agreed to let New York’s concealed gun law remain in effect until a three-judge panel weighs in on a court ruling that blocked parts of the restrictive gun measure.
In a two-sentence ruling, 2nd Circuit Court Judge Eunice Lee referred New York state’s request for a stay of the temporary restraining order to a three-judge panel while the state appeals the merits of a ruling blocking the enforcement of part of the law.
The court also granted the state’s request to pause the temporary restraining order from going into effect pending the result of the panel review.
Last Thursday, a federal court issued a temporary restraining order which would have prevented enforcement of parts of the “Concealed Carry Improvement Act.” The law was enacted in the wake of the Supreme Court decision this summer striking down a New York gun law that placed restrictions on carrying a concealed handgun outside the home.
The measure enacts a strict permitting process for concealed-carry licenses and it requires background checks for ammunition sales. It also restricts the concealed carry of firearms in locations such as government buildings.
But the plaintiffs in the case at hand, including at least one individual who wants to carry his firearm in church, argue the state is violating their Second and 14th Amendment rights by denying them the right to self-defense.
Nationwide, in the three months since the 6-3 Supreme Court decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, scores of new lawsuits have been filed against gun restrictions at the federal, state and local levels.
Though the Supreme Court case concerned a type of gun permitting regime embraced by just a handful of states, the conservative majority used the Bruen decision to provide new instructions for how courts are to assess the constitutionality of gun laws nationwide.
The decision was the first major Supreme Court guns ruling in more than a decade, and it came after Justice Clarence Thomas – who authored the majority opinion – had previously complained that the high court had allowed the Second Amendment to be treated as “a disfavored right.”