Antonyuk 2 -- New GOA challenge to NY CCW law

[skeetersf]

This is a new case filed by GOA, filed Sept. 20, challenging the new NY CCW law.

The original case, Antonyuk v. Bruen (Antonyuk 1), was dismissed by Judge Suddaby, NDNY, on the grounds of lack of standing. As a result, the NY law took effect on Sept 1, 2022. However, in the opinion dismissing the case, Judge Suddaby wrote an extensive opinion explaining why, if there was standing, he would have ruled to strike down many of the provisions of the new law. In particular, he would have struck down many of the "senstive places" added in the new law, and the provision that carry is prohibited on all private property unless the owner affirmatively consents/posts signage that firearms are allowed. Calfiornia's SB918 was patterned on the NY law, and will be revived and passed by CA legislature early in 2023 with urgency (I predict).

Rather than take the time to appeal the standing issue, GOA apparently decided to file a new lawsuit, Antonuk v. Hochul (Antonyuk 2) in which they added additional plaintiffs and defendants, with the goal of establishing standing. The new case has been assigned to the same Judge Suddaby, because it is related to Antonyuk 1. If plaintiffs are successful in establishing standing, then you would expect that Judge Suddaby would then proceed to enjoin large parts of the NY statute, as he had indicated a month ago, he would do.

Antonyuk v. Hochul, District Court, N.D. New York, Docket Number: 1:22-cv-00986. For you legal nerds, you can follow this case on courtlistener.com.

Here is a link to the complaint:

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/65364032/1/antonyuk-v-hochul/

Of course, a TRO or injunction by a federal district judge in NY against a NY statute would have no legal effect on a California CCW statute, when it is passed, but how this gets treated by the 2d Circuit Court of Appeals and maybe SCOTUS, if it ever gets that far, will be very interesting for us in California.

==========================================

2-20-24 requested certiorari

Docket at USSC: https://www.supremecourt.gov/Search....%5C23-910.html

[SandHill]

Thanks for posting this. This sentence really made my day:

The new case has been assigned to the same Judge Suddaby, because it is related to Antonyuk 1.

Sounds like that NY CCW will be stayed very soon.

[Lanejsl]

This is a new case filed by GOA, filed Sept. 20, challenging the new NY CCW law.

The original case, Antonyuk v. Bruen (Antonyuk 1), was dismissed by Judge Suddaby, NDNY, on the grounds of lack of standing. As a result, the NY law took effect on Sept 1, 2022. However, in the opinion dismissing the case, Judge Suddaby wrote an extensive opinion explaining why, if there was standing, he would have ruled to strike down many of the provisions of the new law. In particular, he would have struck down many of the "senstive places" added in the new law, and the provision that carry is prohibited on all private property unless the owner affirmatively consents/posts signage that firearms are allowed. Calfiornia's SB918 was patterned on the NY law, and will be revived and passed by CA legislature early in 2023 with urgency (I predict).

Rather than take the time to appeal the standing issue, GOA apparently decided to file a new lawsuit, Antonuk v. Hochul (Antonyuk 2) in which they added additional plaintiffs and defendants, with the goal of establishing standing. The new case has been assigned to the same Judge Suddaby, because it is related to Antonyuk 1. If plaintiffs are successful in establishing standing, then you would expect that Judge Suddaby would then proceed to enjoin large parts of the NY statute, as he had indicated a month ago, he would do.

Antonyuk v. Hochul, District Court, N.D. New York, Docket Number: 1:22-cv-00986. For you legal nerds, you can follow this case on courtlistener.com.

Here is a link to the complaint:

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/65364032/1/antonyuk-v-hochul/

Of course, a TRO or injunction by a federal district judge in NY against a NY statute would have no legal effect on a California CCW statute, when it is passed, but how this gets treated by the 2d Circuit Court of Appeals and maybe SCOTUS, if it ever gets that far.

This is a great summation. Wonder how the addition of these new plaintiffs increase standing though?

[skeetersf]

Standing is not an area that I pretend to understand, but it is always hard fought. Having the first suit tossed out on standing was, i bet, very disappointing to GOA. I would assume and hope that before they filed the second lawsuit, they locked that issue down.

[FreemanG]

To have standing a plaintiff needs to show a remediable, immediate and concrete harm.

For example, a plaintiff would not have standing in the "sensitive places" aspect unless A) they get arrested or otherwise punished while carrying there or B) they attest that they intend to carry there until they are arrested or punished for doing so

[nick]

In my opinion, demanding standing in civil rights litigation is ridiculous.

[spalterego]

In my opinion, demanding standing in civil rights litigation is ridiculous.

No, standing is still important, but I do think that the standards should be relaxed for civil rights cases, and in practice they usually are, at least for non 2A cases.

Without standing, you get fake cases: Every Town for Gun Safety files a claim as plaintiff to enjoin the new NY ccip law but tries to do so in such a way as to lose and make sure the law is upheld. Litigants will
Play games (much like U.S. v Miller).

[spalterego]

History of US v Miller. https://static1.squarespace.com/stat...ian-L-Frye.pdf

[FreemanG]

Literally, all they needed to do to have standing was tell the judge that they were going to concealed carry in a newly designated "sensitive place" until they are arrested.

[spalterego]

On Thursday, the judge in Antonyuk 2 (the same judge as in the first case) held a hearing on the plaintiff's motion for TRO.

https://www.syracuse.com/crime/2022/09/syracuse-federal-judge-remains-skeptical-of-ny-gun-law-as-he-considers-whether-to-quash-it.html?outputType=amp

[kuug]

Suddaby finally granted a TRO against the New York Bruen response bill's "good moral character," "list of family and cohabitants," social media disclosure, "in-person meeting," and many of the "sensitive location" provisions.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nynd.134829/gov.uscourts.nynd.134829.27.0.pdf

[Foothills]

Somewhat mixed bag. It is interesting that there apparently is some kind of historical prohibition on houses of worship, with the exception of those tasked with keeping the peace. One wonders if a church's insurance company would insist on who those individuals can be.

But, overall, it certainly moves things in a positive direction. Especially for people who need to take the subway.

[ritter]

Excellent news. Refreshing to see a judge tell the state they need to bear the burden of proof.

[IVC]

But, but, but, it will never work, we're doomed, CA and NY will just ignore SCOTUS, it will never happen, mark my words, we are in the worse position after Bruen than before because they'll retaliate against us.... (and other nonsense we've seen for the past few months.)

This was expected since the problem with the initial lawsuit was technical, not the merits. And the state has three days to appeal to the *circuit* court, which would then short-track it for SCOTUS to interfere in the PI process, something they rarely do, but this would be just a perfect case for them to get involved and reaffirm their supremacy.

[M1A Rifleman]

mark my words, we are in the worse position after Bruen than before because they'll retaliate against us.... (and other nonsense we've seen for the past few months.)

Your right, it was so much better in NY and CA than before Bruen because their gun laws were on the ropes and were to be over-turned in a matter of weeks.