2nd Circuit Court strikes down some of the New York CCIA

[Nickel City Dude]

Here is the Conclusion page (261)

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, we AFFIRM the injunctions in part, VACATE in part, and REMAND for proceedings consistent with this opinion. In summary, we uphold the district court’s injunctions with respect to N.Y. Penal L. § 400.00(1)(o)(iv) (social media disclosure); N.Y. Penal L. § 265.01-d (restricted locations) as applied to private property held open to the general public; and N.Y. Penal L. § 265.01-e(2)(c) as applied to Pastor Spencer, the Tabernacle Family Church, its members, or their agents and licensees. We vacate the injunctions in all other respects, having concluded either that the district court lacked jurisdiction because no plaintiff had Article III standing to challenge the laws or that the challenged laws do not violate the Constitution on their face.116

 

116 We emphasize that we are here reviewing facial challenges to these provisions at a very early stage of this litigation. A preliminary injunction is not a full merits decision, but rather addresses only the “likelihood of success on the merits.” Salinger v. Colting, 607 F.3d 68, 79 (2d Cir. 2010) (emphasis added); see also Amoco Prod. Co. v. Vill. of Gambell, AK, 480 U.S. 531, 546 n.12 (1987) (“The standard for a preliminary injunction is essentially the same as for a permanent injunction with the exception that the plaintiff must show a likelihood of success on the merits rather than actual success.”). Our affirmance or vacatur of the district courts’ injunctions does not determine the ultimate constitutionality of the challenged CCIA provisions, which await further briefing, discovery, and historical analysis, both in these cases as they proceed and perhaps in other cases.

 

And here is the link just in case you are interested in reading the entire 261 pages.  I skimmed threw them last night but did not read all of what is there.

https://saf.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/176-opinion.pdf

[Shepherd Book]

A partial victory, but we are not there yet, pard!   SB

[Nickel City Dude]

I read THE CONCLUSION about the 2^nd Circuit Courts ruling.  I was only able to skim the 261 page document but one thing that drew my attention is that the state claimed that historically there were several laws or ordinances that support restricting concealed carry in bars and taverns.  But the laws they quoted were not in effect in 1791 but rather times like 1888.  If I remember correctly the SCOTUS ruled that any anti 2A laws had to be similar to laws present in 1791 so quoting laws from 1888 were not relevant.  Besides most but not all of the laws they listed had to do with intoxicated people with weapons not just being present with a pistol in your pocket.  Also, something I did not see in the ruling is where our side pointed out that in 1888 no one needed a license to carry a concealed handgun and there good or evil intensions were not predictable.  But today in NY it is necessary to have a license to carry concealed, and anyone that is licensed has been vetted to be sure that they are not likely to misbehave.  For this reason, they are comparing apples to oranges.  Also, there are already laws on the books that deal with intoxicated people with weapons.  I hope our lawyers have thought of this.  If they have not considered this line of defense yet I hope that they will, so the next time the state brings up these examples, they will have a good defense or at least a logical rebuttal.  If I have not been clear in my attempt to explain this in text you are more than welcome to contact me.