SCOTUS Rejects New York Gun Law Challenge

On April 7, the United States Supreme Court   rejected a petition to hear   Antonyuk v. James, a challenge to New York gun restrictions that are generally seen as retaliatory measures by the state in response to the High Court’s landmark 2022 ruling in   New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen.

To put it in context, the Bruen decision struck down a New York law requiring individuals to demonstrate “proper cause” for a concealed carry license, finding it unconstitutional. Almost immediately thereafter, New York enacted a ban on concealed firearms in “sensitive locations,” like places of worship, healthcare facilities, parks, entertainment venues, and other places where people generally gather. An additional provision requires gun owners to show “good moral character” before obtaining a concealed carry license.

Upon being challenged, the Supreme Court refused to put the new law on hold, leaving a 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in place that upheld key components of the law while striking down a prohibition on concealed firearms on private property generally open to the public and a requirement to provide social media account information when applying for a concealed carry permit.

New York is not the only state enacting stiffer gun laws in response to the Bruen decision, which has led to more taxpayer-funded legal challenges and appeals seeking Supreme Court clarification on the scope of the 2022 ruling. In the case of Antonyuk, the petition was rejected in short order after only two conferences and without providing any reason.

In fact, the April 7 orders list issued by the Supreme Court did not include any opinions on the matter, but rather a straight ruling across the board. This is interesting since, at the very least, one might expect Justice Thomas and Justice Alito to dissent from the decision. This is especially true given the retaliatory nature of the law which looks like defiance or even contempt of the United States Supreme Court. 

It’s important to understand that Antonyuk v. James is currently in the interlocutory phase which means parties continue to argue at the state level about which injunctions should or should not be applied to the law. The Supreme Court is not historically fond of accepting cases in this manner, which is ultimately frustrating to Second Amendment advocates, however, it means that the case is likely to return to the High Court after it is adjudicated and challenged on its merits.

“Make no mistake—this isn’t the end. The Second Circuit’s decision below is part of a broader campaign to resist Bruen and deny lawful Americans their rights. The Supreme Court may have passed on this case at this preliminary stage, but we are confident that the Justices will soon address the growing defiance of the lower courts. GOA and GOF are prepared to keep fighting, wherever this battle leads,” said Sam Paredes on behalf of the Gun Owners Foundation.

Given these facts, and the lack of any dissent, speculation exists that perhaps Supreme Court conservatives are preparing to address Second Amendment litigation once again in the cases of Snope v. Brown and   Ocean State Tactical v. Rhode Island, both of which cases have been held in conference for some time now.

Are the United States Supreme Court conservatives picking their battles wisely, or are the Justices signaling a lack of teeth behind their rulings that will lead to an endless merry-go-round of litigation? Let us know your thoughts in the comments below.