Update: On October 10, New York Attorney General Letitia James filed a motion in the second circut court of appeals, requesting a stay against the restraining order. On October 12, that stay was granted; according to a press release from James' office, "the full CCIA is in effect until a three-judge panel on the Second Circuit decides on the motion to stay. "

ALBANY, NY — The shifting landscape of New York State’s gun regulations has changed again.

On October 6, the Hon. Glenn T. Suddaby, a judge with the United States District Court: Northern Division of New York, issued a temporary restraining order against parts of the gun control regulations passed by New York State earlier this year.

‘Granted in part, denied in part’

Six plaintiffs filed a case against the regulations passed by New York State, the Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA), claiming the act was unconstitutional.

Suddaby granted the plaintiffs’ request for a temporary restraining order against certain parts of the law, and denied it against others.

The new gun law added a list of considerations to the process of attaining a concealed carry permit. Applicants must have “good moral character,” will need to provide names and contact information for family members, must provide a list of their social media accounts, and must  have an in-person meeting with the the permitting officers.

Suddaby granted a temporary restraining order against the above provisions, while letting others stand, most notably the requirement of 18 hours of firearms training. Most of the provisions restrained fell afoul of the court’s historical analysis; the court looked at the pre-existing legal tradition and found no analogues to the concealed carry provisions.

The requirement that an applicant demonstrate “good moral character” earned special attention. It made applicants prove they weren’t dangerous in order to get a permit, where the historical tradition let applicants get a permit unless a permitting officer proved they were dangerous, wrote Suddaby; “instead of moving toward becoming a shall-issue jurisdiction, New York State has further entrenched itself as a shall-not-issue jurisdiction.” The court didn’t restrain that provision of the law, but added language to it requiring a permit be issued unless a permitting officer prove the applicant is not of good moral character.

The court also examined the list of “sensitive locations” included under the law.

The law restricted gun owners from carrying in a long list of “sensitive locations.” The court temporarily restrained that clause from being enforced in many of these places, including summer camps, public transit, performance venues, bars and Times Square.

“Although historical analogues certainly exist prohibiting carrying firearms in specific cases, no historical analogues have been provided prohibiting carrying firearms virtually everywhere, as the CCIA does,” Suddaby wrote.

Government buildings, protest sites and school buildings remained “sensitive locations” after the court’s review, along with places of worship (with an exception for individuals keeping the peace).

Suddaby also restricted the state from enforcing the provision of the CCIA that gun owners cannot carry on private property unless explicitly allowed.

What goes around, comes around

The court’s decisions were only temporary, pending a final decision in the case. The decisions are subject as well to more rapid changes in the legal landscape.

Suddaby held the restraining orders from coming into effect for three business days following the decision, allowing the defendants to seek relief in the second circuit. That relief remains in the air as of press time; see riverreporter.com/news for more up-to-date information.  

Gov. Kathy Hochul released a statement responding to the decision, indicating that her office and the attorney general’s office were reviewing the decision and preparing the next steps of an appeal. “While this decision leaves aspects of the law in place, it is deeply disappointing that the judge wants to limit my ability to keep New Yorkers safe and to prevent more senseless gun violence.”

“Today’s court decision is a major victory for law-abiding gun owners,” said Sen. Peter Oberacker (NY-51) in a statement released on Twitter.