Judge Denies New York’s Extension In GOA Case Challenging New Concealed Carry Law
SYRACUSE, NY-(Ammoland.com)- The Judge in Antonyuk et al v. Bruen has denied New York State’s motion for an extension to respond to Gun Owners of America’s (GOA) request for a preliminary injunction against the Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA).
The case centers around Ukrainian immigrant Ivan Antonyuk and the CCIA. The CCIA was New York’s answer to the New York State Pistol Rifle Association (NYSPRA) v. Bruen Supreme Court decision that knocked down the State’s “may issue” permitting regime. After the decision, Governor Kathy Hochul called an emergency session of the New York State Legislature with the focus of changing the laws to make most of the State off limits for citizens to carry a firearm.
Although the Supreme Court did say certain “sensitive areas” could be gun-free zones, it also noted that the designation had to be used sparingly.
The Court further stated that just because people gather in an area doesn’t mean it could be considered “sensitive.” New York ignored that part of the opinion and passed the CCIA, which made most of the State off limits to firearm carriers. Even private property, by default, is a gun-free zone unless the property owner opted out by posting multiple signs. Violating the law would result in a felony that would see a citizen’s firearms rights stripped for life.
Mr. Antonyuk held an unrestricted carry permit when the legislature passed the CCIA. Instead of the SCOTUS decision making it easier for Antonyuk to carry a firearm in the State, the CCIA restricted the New York resident’s gun rights more than before the landmark ruling. Gun Owners of America and Gun Owners Foundation (GOA’s non-profit arm) stepped up to help Mr. Antonyuk challenge the new law. GOA filed a lawsuit against the Empire State and then filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. New York responded by asking for a two-week extension to reply to the motion because of “[t]he extensive nature of the briefing that must take place to address all of the issues that Plaintiffs raise in this lawsuit.” The State also cites “[t]he complexity of the constitutional issues involved.”
GOA objected to the two-week extension citing that the law will affect millions in the State and is due to go into effect on September 1, 2022. The State asked Judge Glenn T. Suddaby to consider the expiration date of Mr. Antonyuk’s permit instead of the effective date of the CCIA being implemented. Judge Suddaby rejected the New York State’s request in what can only be seen as a shot across the bow of the State’s attorneys. He cites that if the extension were granted, the Court would be forced to shorten the time GOA has to reply if the judge was to issue a ruling on the motion for preliminary injunction before the law goes into effect, which appears as to what the judge is planning on doing.
The judge also points out that New York State “[h]as has already received a head start in amassing the necessary historical sources in N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Assoc., Inc. v. Bruen.”
The judge writes:
“TEXT ORDER granting in part and denying in part 10 Defendant’s letter-motion for an extension of the deadline by which he must respond to Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. Although Defendant certainly must (as he argues) review “extensive” history to brief the Court on the relevant historical traditions in his response, he has already gotten a head start in amassing the necessary historical sources in N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Assoc., Inc. v. Bruen, 18-CV-0134 (N.D.N.Y.). Moreover, although Plaintiffs did not also file a motion for emergency relief in the form of a Temporary Restraining Order, the law they challenge does take effect on September 1, 2022: the Court could not grant Defendant the full extension he seeks without shortening (1) the seven-day period for Plaintiffs’ reply, (2) the time afforded the Court to review that reply before the hearing, (3) the window of time in which to hold the hearing, and (4) the time afforded the Court (between the hearing and September 1, 2022) to prepare a Decision and Order. In short, the complete relief that Defendant seeks in his letter-motion would deprive Plaintiffs of their right to have their motion for a preliminary injunction fairly and justly decided, if not the very relief they are seeking. As a result, the deadline for Defendant’s response to Plaintiffs’ motion is extended five days to the end of MONDAY, AUGUST 15, 2022; and the deadline for Plaintiffs’ reply is extended five days to the end of MONDAY, AUGUST 22, 2022. Defendant is respectfully advised that the partial granting of his letter-motion is contingent on him making himself available for an in-person hearing at any point between TUESDAY, AUGUST 23, 2022, and the end of FRIDAY, AUGUST 26, 2022. A Decision and Order on Plaintiffs’ motion will be issued before the statute in question takes effect on September 1, 2022. SO ORDERED by Chief Judge Glenn T. Suddaby on 7/21/2022. (sal)”
New York State will have until Monday, August 15, 2022 to reply to GOA’s motion for a preliminary injunction. An in-person hearing will occur between Tuesday, August 23, 2022 and Friday, August 26th, 2022. The judge is expected to rule on the preliminary injunction before September 1.