After the U.S. Supreme Court struck down New York’s requirement that those seeking to carry firearms in public show proper cause to do so, the state sprang into action to resist the practical implications of the ruling. Within eight days of the decision, the New York legislature banned firearms in most public places and added numerous additional application requirements for concealed-carry licenses. Although it is no secret that the state’s legislators were not fans of the Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, whether their response stayed within the constitutional limits prescribed by Bruen is another matter. In Antonyuk v. Chiumento, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit addressed that question and upheld most of the state’s Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA). Antonyuk was quite long—261 pages, to be exact—and will undoubtedly prove influential, as it was one the first application by a court of appeals of Bruen’s text, history, and tradition test to public carry regulations.
This piece critically assesses the Second Circuit’s interpretation of Bruen. Although the court correctly struck down onerous provisions of New York’s law that had no historical pedigree, it upheld many regulations that also lacked a clear basis in the nation’s history and tradition of firearm regulation. This piece argues that the Second Circuit in places turned Bruen on its head by relying on historical silence and restrictions from nineteenth-century territories to uphold numerous provisions of the CCIA.
Recommended Citation
Leo Bernabei, Antonyuk, Bruen, and the Second Circuit (Firearms Rsch. Ctr., Working Paper No. 2024-3).
