Anti-gun politicians have already responded to the Supreme Court’s ruling on New York Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen by passing a slew of measures designed to further impede the right to bear arms. New York’s government did precisely what New York City Mayor Eric Adams and Gov. Kathy Hochul promised and instituted measures to ensure they could continue infringing on New Yorkers’ Second Amendment rights, despite their ridiculous gun licensing scheme being struck down.
But now, the gun rights crowd is fighting back. Not only are they opposing these measures, but there is also a decent chance that the state’s new laws might not survive scrutiny in the courts. Since other states like California are set to follow New York’s lead, this battle could further hamper leftist attempts to disarm the law-abiding public.
For starters, New York resident Ivan Antonyuk, in conjunction with Gun Owners of America, filed a lawsuit against lawmakers alleging that they are disregarding the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bruen and are “flouting the people’s right to keep and bear arms, and in fact creating a far more onerous and restrictive concealed carry scheme even than that which existed prior to the Bruen decision.”
The lawsuit continues:
In other words, the Governor appears to have no desire to comply with the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision, and every intention to thwart and undermine it through signing the [Concealed Carry Improvement Act] into law, as a sort of guerrilla warfare against the Supreme Court, the rule of law, and the Second Amendment.
This new bill, rushed through the extraordinary session and passed without the required public posting, comment and debate, has now introduced a slew of new, unprecedented, and blatantly unconstitutional impediments to New Yorkers in their attempt to exercise their constitutional right to armed self-defense outside the home.
The plaintiffs also criticized other aspects of the legislation, particularly the provision that would demand the names and contact information of relatives and co-habitants of the person seeking a concealed carry license. They allege that it violates the First Amendment right of association and anonymity of those who do not wish to be contacted by agents of the state.
The suit also takes issue with the CCIA’s demand that “character references” should be required to ensure that the applicant “has not engaged in any acts, or made any statements that suggest they are likely to engage in conduct that would result in harm to themselves or others.”
In another instance, a Republican congressional candidate in New York has also filed a lawsuit challenging the new anti-gun laws. Carl Paladino is suing the state in federal court, claiming that parts of the legislation are “wildly unconstitutional.” WGRZ reported:
Paladino says certain parts of the legislation, such as expanded background checks, are acceptable. However, Paladino says other aspects of the law are “wildly unconstitutional.” Specifically, Paladino refers to section five of Chapter 371, which aims to ban concealed carry licenses.
The candidate released a statement after filing the lawsuit:
This new law attempts treat [sic] Second Amendment rights in a way that would be unthinkable in the context of First Amendment rights of speech or worship. New York State cannot force law-abiding citizens to get permission to carry their concealed handgun each time they enter a different property anymore than it could force citizens to ask property owners for permission before they express a political opinion or pray in public.
Gun rights advocates are also taking action at the federal level to protect the Second Amendment. Sen. Steve Daines (R-MT) reintroduced a carry reciprocity bill. The Daily Caller reported:
The legislation, first obtained by the Daily Caller, is titled the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act. The bill would ensure a Montana resident can legally conceal carry a gun into a state where the state’s own residents can conceal carry. This bill also allows for individuals with a state-issued concealed carry license to conceal a gun in any other state, as long as the permit holder follows the laws of that state.
Daines’ Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act also would allow those who live in a constitutional carry state to carry in other states.
This is just the beginning. As the hard left seeks to disarm the populace, we can expect more legislative and legal battles at the state and federal level. The Supreme Court’s ruling in Bruen is a massive setback for the anti-gunner crowd. But this does not mean progressives have given up in their effort to make it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to obtain and carry firearms. This battle will continue in earnest, but at least for now, the pendulum has swung our way.