On February 18, 2025, the Peace Officers’ Research Association of California, the California Association of Highway Patrolmen, the California State Sheriffs' Association and the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPPC) filed an amicus brief in support of a Petition for Certiorari to review the constitutionality of New York’s new concealed carry law, which severely restricts the places CCW permit holders may carry concealed handguns much like California’s Senate Bill 2 (SB 2).
The brief is in connection to the U.S. Supreme Court case of Ivan Antonyuk, et al. v. Steven James, the Acting Superintendent of the New York State Police, et al. The case challenges New York’s Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA), a revised gun law adopted in New York in July 2022 – only days after the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen (Bruen). These law enforcement Amici had previously filed a similar brief in support of review on March 25th, 2024, as well as an Amici Curiae brief in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit regarding a California law, Senate Bill 2.
The Second Circuit issued a new opinion upholding most of New York’s “Concealed Carry Improvement Act” in an opinion issued after remand, which is nearly identical to the opinion vacated in light of United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680 (2024). Both the Second Circuit and the Ninth Circuit opinions upheld the majority of the respective restrictions on carry locations, disregarding the U.S. Supreme Court's warning against “expanding the category of ‘sensitive places’ simply to all places of public congregation that are not isolated from law enforcement” and “effectively declar[ing] the island of Manhattan a ‘sensitive place.’” Bruen at 2134.
Bruen held “only if a firearm regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s ‘unqualified command.’” Id. at 2126. This Court identified “settled” sensitive places, such as “legislative assemblies, polling places, and courthouses,” where the carrying of firearms may be prohibited and directed lower courts to “use analogies to those historical regulations” to determine if new sensitive places restrictions are constitutionally permissible. Id. at 2133. Defying these Constitutional commands, New York and California expanded longstanding sensitive place definitions to encompass nearly their entire states, other than some streets and sidewalks.
The Amici have an important interest in the Supreme Court correcting the Second Circuit Opinion to promote judicial economy, ensure a uniform interpretation of the Second Amendment, and uphold the principle of equal treatment under the law. The Ninth Circuit issued a consolidated opinion addressing SB 2 in Wolford v. Lopez, 116 F.4th 959, 970 (9th Cir. 2024), which upheld more restrictive California and Hawaii laws modeled after the NY law. The Ninth Circuit created a split from the Second Circuit and every other district court by upholding the reversal of the consent presumption that permit-holders may carry on private property. This restriction is commonly know as the vampire rule, wherein CCW permit holders cannot carry on private property without advance permission.
The issues presented in this appeal are of national concern. The constitutionality of restrictions on where concealed carry may be prohibited is a serious national concern, particularly for the Sheriffs who issue the permits and the officers that must enforce constitutionally suspect laws. Forcing officers to potentially violate citizens’ civil rights will subject officers to section 1983 liability and damages public confidence in law enforcement. Moreover, officers have a direct interest in protecting their own right to self-defense and concealed carry in their retirement.
