A Judge Tosses One New York Carry Restriction
Senior United States District Judge Glenn T. Suddaby of the Northern District of New York threw out part of New York’s sensitive-places law in a ruling issued Wednesday. The provision restricted carrying firearms in unsecured areas of airports. Suddaby, a George W. Bush appointee, said he believed that restriction would not survive Supreme Court scrutiny. The order did not erase the entire law. He upheld other restrictions while warning that they could also face serious problems on review. Legal headlines often treat one loose thread as a full unraveling. Here, the court pulled one thread and suggested the rest of the sweater may deserve another look.
The Law Followed Bruen
New York passed its sensitive-places law after the Supreme Court’s June 2022 decision in Bruen. That ruling declared discretionary issuance of concealed-carry permits unconstitutional on Second Amendment grounds. New York’s later law placed restrictions on carrying firearms in numerous locations. That created a new legal fight over whether a state could respond to Bruen by limiting public carry across a long list of places. The issue is not simply whether one location can be treated differently. It is whether enough location-by-location restrictions can be combined until the general right to carry exists mostly on paper. That is the concern at the center of Suddaby’s ruling.
Suddaby Says the Restrictions May Reach Too Far
Suddaby focused on the combined effect of New York’s rules. He wrote that the challenged provisions do not exist in a vacuum because they operate alongside numerous other concealed-carry bans. He said it was difficult to conclude that the law complied with the Supreme Court’s warning that a state cannot ban firearm carriage “too broadly” in a way that would “eviscerate the general right to publicly carry arms for self-defense.” In his view, the separate restrictions could add up to a ban that exists “nearly everywhere.” That reasoning looks beyond whether each individual location sounds narrow. A state can describe every restriction as a small exception, but the court is also looking at the map created by all those exceptions. Bureaucracy may love a long list. The Constitution still gets to ask what the list does in practice.
Recent Supreme Court Decisions Complicate the Picture
Suddaby also pointed to intervening Supreme Court decisions, including Rahimi, Hemani, and Wolford. In June, the Supreme Court ruled in Wolford v. Lopez that a Hawaii law was unconstitutional because it required private property owners who wanted to allow concealed carry on their premises to post clear signs saying that carrying guns was allowed. That provision appeared in a law similar to New York’s sensitive-places statute, which was also passed after Bruen. Suddaby wrote that some Second Circuit rulings in Antonyuk II may be overruled because of these later Supreme Court decisions. At the same time, he said he had to follow Antonyuk II unless the newer decisions undermined it so severely that the Second Circuit would “almost inevitably” overrule it. The legal gears turn slowly, even when a lower court can already see the warning lights.
Other Restrictions Stay in Place For Now
The immediate result is limited but clear. New York’s restriction on carrying firearms in unsecured airport areas was thrown out, while Suddaby upheld other restrictions. He also indicated that he believed those remaining limits would likely fail Supreme Court review. That leaves New York with a law that is partly intact and a federal ruling questioning whether its combined reach fits with Bruen and the Supreme Court’s later decisions. The judge’s order therefore does two things at once: it removes one airport restriction and preserves other rules under existing Second Circuit precedent. For now, the airport provision is gone under this ruling, while the broader dispute over New York’s sensitive-places law remains active.
WE’D LOVE TO HEAR YOUR THOUGHTS! PLEASE COMMENT BELOW.
