Hochul’s Circular Firing Squad: Federal Court Rules Against New York’s Gun Law

I previously wrote about the latest New York gun law passed after the Court’s ruling in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen and how it follows a long line of legally flawed legislative measures in the area. It did not take long.  On Thursday, federal District Judge Glenn T. Suddaby issued a temporary restraining order against a substantial part of the law, including barring the provisions previously discussed as presumptively unconstitutional.

New York Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul promised such legislation within an hour of the release of Bruen.  The Concealed Carry Improvement Act passed 43-20. While I noted that the law “has some elements likely to pass constitutional muster,” it followed the same pattern of past laws in creating an easy target for gun rights advocates.

After Bruen was handed down recognizing that limits in some sensitive places could be constitutionally permissible, Hochul went on television to say in a mocking tone that they would just come up with a long list of sensitive places.  At the time I remarked that it was a rather foolish statement since that clip will be cited by challengers to show a clear attempt to undermine the ruling with yet another transparent loophole argument.The list would seem to cover most areas outside of the home, including government buildings; any location providing health, behavioral health or chemical dependence care or services; any place of worship or religious observation; libraries; public playgrounds; public parks; zoos; the location of any state funded or licensed programs; educational institutions both in elementary and higher education; any vehicle used for public transportation; all public transit including airports and bus terminals; bars and restaurants; entertainment, gaming and sporting events and venues; polling places; any public sidewalk or public area restricted for a special event; and protests or rallies.

It is hard not to see that listing as an obvious effort to do precisely what Hochul said: to recreate the ban by including virtually every location as a “sensitive area.”

Suddaby barred the limits on carrying guns in recreational settings, areas where alcoholic beverages are consumed, and other venues. That includes locations like Times Square. As expected, he preserved the limits for public or private educational facilities, polling places, government administrative buildings, permitted special events, and public meeting places.

Once again, it is baffling why New York voters continue to enable this type of leadership. New York routinely opts for legislation that offer immediate political benefits while causing long-term precedential damage. It is reckless and cynical, particularly when two justices (Roberts and Kavanaugh) have signaled their willingness to accept reasonable limits. Instead, Gov. Hochul and others have once again assembled the same circular firing squad of new, easily challengeable legislation.

The matter will now go to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which has proven amiable to limits on the Second Amendment. It has also been reversed in major cases like Bruen. This could repeat that pattern and give the gun rights advocates another great opportunity to expand on Second Amendment protections.

The case is Antonyuk v. Hochul, No. 1:22-CV-0986 (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York).

62 thoughts on “Hochul’s Circular Firing Squad: Federal Court Rules Against New York’s Gun Law”

  1. Crime shot up (pun intended) from the first gun laws, they’ve wavered a bit but they’ve never come back down.

    1. Ever since John Kennedy was murdered we’ve had gun control. How’s it working after all these years?

  2. “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”

    Mz. Ho Chul must be subjected to a pre-dawn raid, arrested and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law with extreme prejudice for denial of constitutional rights, abuse, usurpation, nullification and insurrection against the U.S. Constitution and, therefore, America.

    Where has the Royal Liberal Prima Donna Supreme Court been for 162 years, most certainly not doing its oath-sworn duty to support the “manifest tenor” of the U.S. Constitution, for which it evinces very little respect?

    “JUDICIAL REVIEW – THE POWER TO DECLARE A LAW UNCONSTITUTIONAL”
    __________________________________________________________________

    Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803), was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case that established the principle of judicial review in the United States, meaning that American courts have the power to strike down laws and statutes that they find to violate the Constitution of the United States.

    – Wiki
    _____

    Marbury v. Madison

    The Court found that Madison’s refusal to deliver the commission was illegal, but did not order Madison to hand over Marbury’s commission via writ of mandamus. Instead, the Court held that the provision of the Judiciary Act of 1789 enabling Marbury to bring his claim to the Supreme Court was itself unconstitutional, since it purported to extend the Court’s original jurisdiction beyond that which Article III, Section 2, established.

    Marshall expanded that a writ of mandamus was the proper way to seek a remedy, but concluded the Court could not issue it. Marshall reasoned that the Judiciary Act of 1789 conflicted with the Constitution. Congress did not have power to modify the Constitution through regular legislation because Supremacy Clause places the Constitution before the laws.

    In so holding, Marshall established the principle of judicial review, i.e., the power to declare a law unconstitutional.

    – Oyez
    ______

    Judicial Review in the United States

    Annotation – The legitimacy of judicial review and the judge’s approach to judicial review are discussed.

    Abstract – The doctrine of judicial review holds that the courts are vested with the authority to determine the legitimacy of the acts of the executive and the legislative branches of government.

    – DOJ, Office of Justice Programs
    ____________________________

    2nd Amendment

    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

  3. “After Bruen was handed down recognizing that limits in some sensitive places could be constitutionally permissible, Hochul went on television to say in a mocking tone that they would just come up with a long list of sensitive places. At the time I remarked that it was a rather foolish statement since that clip will be cited by challengers to show a clear attempt to undermine the ruling with yet another transparent loophole argument.”
    *******************************************
    Nobody ever said the Dims were smart. In fact, they’re the new Party of Crazy taking over from the country club Repubs Party of Stupid. Sad part is the infidels now hold the nuclear codes and with that senile Mr. Magoo in charge of them it might not matter if we’re armed at all since said Fearless Leader says we must defend the Ukraine to the death of all of us. I’m reading the Book of Revelations more and more these days for wagering advice and learning how to effectively render the traditional smite. I think both could come in handy as we move through this little valley we find ourselves in by our own design – or at least by design of 80 million or so of us.

  4. Hochul has governed so poorly that a strongly Democrat state might vote for Lee Zeldin ( R), presently climbing in the polls and is now in reach of winning. I hope NYC gets smart and votes for another Giuliani ( R). Crime affects Democrats and Republicans, so it would be self-serving for Democrats to vote for a Republican Mayor like Giuliani.

  5. The hypocrisy of these politicians alone illustrates the ignorance of the voters who vote for them.

    We need to eradicate all Democrat -politician armed security since those same Democrats decry the efforts of ordinary citizens to have the same type of personal protection … (sounds kind of like the Dems are semi-fascists, right?).

    And no more Biden Building Barrier Walls around his house when he tore down barrier walls on our southern border.

    It used to be easy just to laugh at the Democrat clowns, but now their policies are illustrative of their semi-fascism. And we all hate semi-fascisits, right.

  6. I say, “Better to be judged by twelve than carried by six.” People have a God-given right to protect themselves.

    Can’t demand gun control when your prosecutors won’t protect the public.

  7. “Sensitive places” — “The list would seem to cover most areas outside of the home, including . . .” (JT)

    The whim-driven meaning of “sensitive places” is a good example of how utterly detached from reality the Left is. To them, language means whatever they feel it means. And to them, language is merely a means to satisfy a desire for control and power.

    And so . . .

    “Crime is whatever we claim it is. And if we desire to evade the reality of crime statistics, we are free to do so.” (See the mayor of New Orleans.)

    “‘Inflation’ and ‘recession’ mean whatever satisfies our fantasies. And if we claim they don’t exist, then they don’t.”

    “If we assert that the Covid vaccine protects you from infection and spread, then it does. Facts be damned.”

    “If we allege that there is climate armageddon, then there is.”

    “Insurrection is a figment of our imagination. And if enough people repeat that word, reality will bend to our wishes.”

    Power and destruction are their ends. The mangling of language is their means.

    1. You left out my favorites:

      War is peace.
      Freedom is slavery.
      Ignorance is strength.

      That book was written as a warning not a dream plot for statists, yet here we are.

  8. Not being an attorney, I always wonder if a Governor or State legislature in Toto can be held in contempt of the Federal district courts, Appeals Court, or Supreme Court for obviously trying to usurp and/or render a decision by the court ineffective by their actions. Otherwise this could go on for years and probably will. Are law abiding citizens the last concern of the governor and legislature of New York. It would seem so. They attack the security of their citizens from both ends. Eliminate or try to eliminate any ability to protect yourself from one end and then let violent criminals free with a no bail / revolving door from the other end.
    They are destroying a once proud and rich state. We see the same in California, and now Illinois (very hostile to self defense) effecting a no cash bail law come January 1, 2023 for anything less than a 1st degree murder charge. Soon New York and the Northeast with be ghost states with everyone else gone to Texas or Florida or Georgia and the Southeast. It may turn into the great migration in reverse. New York may make even Mississippi, Arkansas, and Louisiana inviting to move to. Indiana is a great place to live but I will not repeat that because I don’t want any Northeasters moving here unless they bring their company with them and leave their politics in in the Northeast. I used to enjoy visiting New York City and Chicago and D.C. before they went insane but no more.

    1. @GEB,

      To answer your question… yes, to a point.
      They create a law that says X. Courts find X to be unconstitutional. So they either scrap the law or change it to say Y which is different from X, but attempts to do the same thing. Because the courts ruled against X, but not Y, this requires the process of going back to the courts to have them rule on Y even though we all know that Y also doesn’t pass muster.

      Now NYC is famous for pushing a law that they know that even on the face of it, it wouldn’t pass a legal sniff test. Rather than lose in court, they removed it in an attempt to stop SCOTUS from making a ruling that would ban their law across the nation. Didn’t really work out for them…

      So yes, the courts will follow this pattern until it reaches a point, and may take a more proactive approach rather than wait for the legal battle to work thru the lower courts.

      Also they could censure those politicians who have active law licenses.

      Bottom line… this is a long standing democratic trick.

      -G

    2. GEB,
      I live in the NE.
      While we are far away from the deep blue city centers and the insanity they embrace, we are considering moving to a red state.
      Unfortunately, Bidenflation would make giving up our low interest rate for one nearly double makes such a move next to impossible.

  9. As a long time resident of upstate New York, one thing you need keep in mind; the cabal of NYC prog/leftists are pre-programed to do what is ideologically preferred by their constituents without regard to its legality or sanity. Until you remove approximately 7 million of them from the NYC area, New York State will continue in its race to the bottom, competing, only, with California for that spot.

    1. I agree. If Kickback Kathy wins, I might have to seriously thin about relocating. I hate to do it since I love the upstate geography/climate but like Reagan put it, I didn’t leave the state, the state has left me.

      I read somewhere that Zeldin needs to have 30% of NYC to pull off the upset.

    2. .” Until you remove approximately 7 million of them from the NYC area”

      Yes, but like myself, many who left NYC (even if they still have homes) were unhappy with the leadership.

      So many bad things are happening in NYC that we might see people vote for what they need instead of their imprinted ideology.

        1. I no longer trust it anywhere and focus on where the vote will be close. In the NY governor race I would not trust any deep blue radical areas because the vote will be close and the left will cheat.

          Leftists can be quite radical on the West Side of Manhattan. When Glenn Beck left NY I asked him why he was moving to Texas. He told me his young children were being accosted by leftists at the Strawberry Fields monument in Central Park by people who hated him. That is the very popular Memorial to john Lennon. If people can attack children, they can do almost anything.

  10. I am sure all the conscientious law abiding citizens of New York are now carrying their firearms in public places with confidence that they will not be arrested and tried as a felon. The purpose of these blatantly unconstitutional firearms control laws is to sow confusion as to what is legally permitted and what is not, where it is permitted and where it is not. Since the consequences of an innocent mistake are so severe — felony conviction, prison and permanent deprivation of your Second Amendment rights — no law abiding citizen in their right mind in these jurisdictions would carry. They will leave it at home. (Only the criminals will carry.) As long as it is a consequence free way to disarm their citizens, these jurisdictions will continue to act this way. These jurisdictions need to start being held financially liable for deprivation of Constitutional rights. If you are a victim of a violent crime in a jurisdiction with an unconstitutional gun control law, the governmental entity should be financially liable for your damages. Put some consequences to their overreach, and maybe they will not see the intentional violation of their citizens’ constitutional rights as a viable strategy to obtain a prohibited goal.

    1. “If you are a victim of a violent crime in a jurisdiction with an unconstitutional gun control law, the governmental entity should be financially liable for your damages.” The only way that MIGHT stop lawless ‘officials’ in government is to threaten their personal finances and government pension(s). Enough with ‘officials acting in their duty’ being able to run roughshod over their own citizens rights – just because they can. Declare that protection null and void so taxpayers aren’t paying for ‘officials’ lawless actions when the officials are found guilty in a court of law and make the financial penalty hurt, really really hurt. Otherwise, nothing will change.

    2. @tommylotto
      You do realize that to legally carry in NY you need a CCW permit.
      Now how many people have gotten their CCW permit post Bruen?

      So no. People are not legally walking around w a gun to challenge this overreach.

      -G

  11. Keep it up, NY. This is wonderful. Every time they try this we get one step closer to unfettered Constitutional Carry and getting government entirely out of the “gun control” business.

  12. “Once again, it is baffling why New York voters continue to enable this type of leadership.”

    JT, we did not elect the Queen of Botox or Kickback Kathy. She was forced upon us after the third straight dem idiot gov left in disgrace. You would think the political ads would write themselves against the dems. But there are enough NYC jerks who would rather stay lazy and sell their vote for “free” stuff than take responsibility for themselves and elect a gov. not promising handouts.

    1. Ordinarily I’d agree with you Jim . . . but nobody can win an election with just the votes of welfare recipients. There’s a lot of elite Manhattan voters supporting Socialism also.

  13. It is unlikely that those who are most often the victims of crime have any insight into their State Assembly and Senate representatives beyond the paper ballot. They constitute the mindless primitives for whom the political elite have nothing but contempt and upon whose backs they stand.

  14. The Democrats/liberals are not only ignorant about Constitutional rights they are incompetent politically when trying to subvert said rights. We had Ron Klain stating that some of Boden’s actions would be fabulous “workarounds’ when reaching for unconstitutional methods and now we have Hochul, a true moron, getting out there and stating, in a mocking tone, how she would “get around” the Court’ decision.

    Remember folks, this is the same moronic mindset that had Biden saying ON VIDEO that if “Russia invades Ukraine the Nordstream Pipeline would no longer exist”. Fast forward 6 months, the pipeline is destroyed by sabotage and the US is stuck trying to prove that Russia blew up their own pipeline. I am not saying that Russia didn’t blow it up, who knows, but I am saying that supposedly “top of his class” lawyers like Joe Biden should be bright enough to not put out statements that will inevitably come back to bite him on the backside.

    1. Russia didn’t blow up their own pipeline. All they had to do is turn it off. The US blew it up. Another act of War.

      I’ll say it. Biden didn’t get 81 million votes sitting in his basement. The election was STOLEN!

      Look at the mess the National Socialist Democrat WOKE Party has created. It will take years to unwind this mess and that’s if we don’t exchange nukes and end civilization. And that’s a real possibility.

      The “adults” aren’t in the WH it’s FREAKS and SCARY CLOWS!

        1. Based on the evidence so far we know to a high degree of certainty they were blown up, not damaged accidentally.

          We also know who has the capacity to do this – it is not an easy task. And who does not.
          That severly limits the choices.
          Finally we can examine motives.
          And we can examine who benefits.

          Russia would only do this if they could blame it on the west.
          If Russia expected to be blamed it is much easier to just turn off the gas – which they had already done.
          Or to destroy the lines in an apparent act of western sabotage somewhere Russia could easily repair.

          Did Russia want to stop gas to Europe – absolutely – and they already had.
          But equally important Russia wanted leverage to get the EU to do as they wish.
          Shutting off the gas gives them that. Blowing up the pipelines ENDS their leverage.
          The Russians are not stupid. Absolutely they were shutdown the pipelines – as they did.
          But they would not destroy them.

          Whoever destroyed them WANTED to end Russia’s ability to use turning them on and off as a weapon.
          That is Ukraine – who does not have the ability to do this.
          The US which does, and Poland which directly benefits.

          Most of the rest of Europe is harmed by this.
          The people who did this do not want a peace deal, and do not want NATO to push Zelensky to negotiate.
          ——————–

          Is it possible that some nation acted stupidly – possible, but not likely.

          We do not know for certain who did this.

          We do know to a high degree of probability.

          But then you beleived the collusion delusion, and that the Hunter Biden laptop was russian disinformation,
          and that constraining the growth of US fossil fuels would not harm national security.
          And that Biden is not demented.
          And that a man who could not get a crowd of 100 at any rally got 80M votes.

  15. In California, every time the democrats would pass a new law Bass Pro sold firearms by the pallet! Same with reloading supplies.

  16. What? No Hunter Biden column? I thought Turley was going to cover this most dastardly of scandals. It is after all the potential charges against Hunter Biden. Could it be because the case is so weak and pointless? Interesting, very interesting indeed.

    1. When Biden is dragged from the Whitehouse for his corruption Svalez will be the last man standing on the island screaming that the war isn’t over.

      Only a true idiot, a true partisan hack, a paid Democrat or a Bot would still be trying to argue that Hunter’s crimes are minor and immaterial. These are the same idiots that claimed that Spiro Agnew was the devil because he took HUNDREDS of dollars in envelopes and yet Biden is “an honest guy” as we know he has taken MILLIONS as the BIG GUY. What a tool!

      1. RE:”When Biden is dragged from the White House….” From your mouth to God’s ears, but I prefer to wait for outcomes. Nixon’s fate might have been nothing more than dumb luck for this nation.

      2. Hunter Biden doesn’t live in the White House.

        What crimes is he being charged with? The grand jury expired without issuing any charges. That’s not a good sign.

        1. “The investigation into Hunter Biden began in 2018, and became a central focus for then-president Donald Trump during his unsuccessful 2020 reelection effort. Initially, the investigation centered around Hunter Biden’s finances related to overseas business ties and consulting work. Over time, investigators with multiple agencies focused closely on whether he did not report all of his income, and whether he lied on gun purchase paperwork in 2018, according to the people familiar with the situation, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss an ongoing case. -WaPo”
          https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/10/06/hunter-biden-tax-gun-charges/

    2. What? No Hunter Biden column? I thought Turley was going to cover this most dastardly of scandals.

      Your hundreds of comment here, and you have no idea about how The Prof. chooses his topics.
      Almost entirely, the Prof analyzes the process. Not the outcome. There is not much new in the process concerning Hunter. Only as much as it took 2 years to get this close. Vs, Garland moving against parents at local schoolboard meetings.in less than 2 months. vs Swatting a preacher using an unconstitutional law against protesting against abortion clinics. Vs refusing to enforce a law against protesting in front of federal judges home.
      Turley cares about insuring the process is right. Because the process is what protects the citizen against abuse by agents of the Federal Govt.

  17. As the good Prof has pointed out several times. Democrats have done more to advance the totality of 2cnd amendment rights, than the NRA.
    Passing stupid laws, clearly in violation of the Constitution, has established a formidable foundation of judicial precedent, quickly available for other judges when ruling on gun regulations in their jurisdictions.

    1. Gee, , I wonder why voters vote for candidates who want to take steps to limit gun violences. Maybe because they are sick of seeing kids gunned down at school or watching families grieve when another mass shooting occurs. I don’t know I think they’d like to limit the possibility that they will be shot going to church or at the coffee shop. Such silly people. I wonder why people think it is the right of the state to limit gun ownership….you know states’ rights and all that.

      I also wonder if those same voters are wondering why some of our elected officials don’t believes in elections or allowing people to vote. I wonder why states’ rights is ok when it’s serves their purposes but not when it’s used to protect people or women.

      I wonder why people keep electing people who praise autocrats and theocrats; purge voters and don’t respect the outcomes of elections.

      There is a lot of wondering here.

      1. I invite you to look into the real reason school shootings happen. It’s a big onion that has plenty to peel. But you would rather hide behind useless gun laws to make you feel better that something is being done.

      2. I wonder why some people are so dumb to place the blame of a shooting on an inanimate object, that has no self-awareness of its own, let alone means to function without human intervention, but ignore the person who commits the shooting.

        1. The proposed regulations are limits on the people who can own the weapons. I wonder that you don’t understand that. When a driver is required to have a driver’s license is it the car that is being regulated or the person who wants to drive it?

          1. I wonder why you think naming all places as “special” is okay to deny a person to their 2ndA right to self-defence?
            Everyone is required to pass a NICS background check, unless you last name happens to be Biden. Then you can lie on the ATF form 4473 and not get prosecuted.
            I wonder why you cannot understand that?

          2. I wonder, would Hochul’s NO common sense no cash bail and NO common sense gun laws would of saved this woman and her orphaned children?
            “The offenses do not qualify for bail, which is why Bennefield was released on his own recognizance. A law enforcement source told News 4 that these charges would have qualified for bail prior to bail reform.”
            https://justthenews.com/nation/crime/mother-killed-front-her-3-kids-husband-after-he-was-released-without-bail-assault

            1. That is horrific.
              Interesting how little traction that is getting in MSM. Goes against their soft on crime, no cash bail narrative is failing.
              The left would rather see a dead mother of three, than a woman who defended her own life against a criminal if she had the opportunity to defend herself with a gun. Heck, she bought a bullet proof vest!
              But Hochul will not even acknowledge that. She will not acknowledge the failings of her bad policies.
              Better to prosecute law abiding citizens defending their right to self defense and 2ndA rights then criminals!
              Hochual! Soft on crime! Hard on law abiding citizens trying to stay alive!

Leave a Reply