The Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed its decision in Antonyuk v. James (a/k/a Antonyuk v. Nigreli), which challenged New York State’s Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA).

After the Supreme Court’s Bruen opinion mandated that all states must become “shall issue” concerning the concealed carrying of a firearm outside the home for self-defense, New York State passed the CCIA. The CCIA was a set of laws that aimed at making the state hostile to people wanting to carry a gun. It curtailed the rights of the people by making most of the state a “sensitive area,” putting in place burdensome training requirements, making citizens turn over social media posts, and giving issuing authorities broad power to deny a permit to residents. Many believed the state was thumbing its nose at the Supreme Court’s ruling.

Gun Owners of America (GOA), Gun Owners Foundation (GOF), and Ukrainian immigrant Ivan Antonyuk would team up to sue New York State, claiming that the law was clearly unconstitutional. According to the Bruen standard, a gun law must be consistent with the original text, tradition, and history of gun regulations from the founding era. The plaintiffs argued that the law failed all the tests laid out in Bruen because no law from the ratification date of the Second Amendment (1791) was a historical analogue to the CCIA.

New York State argued that the founding era was the ratification date of the 14th Amendment (1868) and not the Second Amendment. This difference of opinion gave the state more leeway to enact anti-gun laws. After the Civil War, southern states passed “Jim Crow Laws” to prevent formerly enslaved black people from obtaining firearms. The state would lean into these racist gun laws for historical analogues.

A District Court judge would disagree with the state and issue an injunction against the enforcement of the CCIA. The state would appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for The Second Circuit. The Second Circuit would vacate most of the injunction while letting other sections of the law stand. This action caused GOA to file for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court. SCOTUS would grant cert, vacate the Second Circuit’s decision, and remand the case back down to the lower court to reconsider in light of the Rahimi case.

The Rahimi case was a Supreme Court case that dealt with a man charged with possessing a gun while being the subject of a protection order. SCOTUS ruled that someone could be temporarily disarmed if they were a danger to themselves or others. The plaintiffs argued that the CCIA disarmed everyone regardless of whether they were dangerous to others or themselves. A law-abiding citizen with no history of violence or criminal activity could be disarmed.

The Second Circuit reviewed the case as SCOTUS demanded and determined that Rahimi had no bearing on this case since it was too different. They also decided that the founding era was both 1791 and 1868 equally. This determination differs from the conclusion found by the Third Circuit in Lara, which stated that the founding era was the ratification date of the Second Amendment and not the 14th Amendment. This disagreement has caused a circuit split.

“This is an incredibly frustrating ruling,” said GOA Senior Vice President Erich Pratt. “The 2nd Circuit got it wrong the first time, SCOTUS told them so and said try again, and this nearly identical ruling is a slap in the face to the Justices and every gun owner across New York.”

“We will continue the fight against Gov. Hochul and anti-gun legislators in Albany until New Yorkers can finally carry for self-defense without infringement.”

A circuit split means that if GOA files for another writ of certiorari with SCOTUS as expected, the high court will likely take up the case and answer the question of the founding era once and for all. If cert is granted, it will probably not be heard this term and most likely be taken up in the 2025-2026 session, which means we will probably not get a ruling for another year at the earliest.

Antonyuk Post Rahimi Opinion by AmmoLand Shooting Sports News on Scribd

About John Crump

Mr. Crump is an NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed people from all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons, follow him on X at @crumpyss, or at www.crumpy.com.