SADEC Files Amicus Brief in Antonyuk v. James
SADEC is proud to announce the filing of an amicus brief in Antonyuk v. James, a petition for certiorari which asks the Supreme Court to examine the Second Circuit’s ruling in a case involving New York’s new “sensitive places” laws, which ban carry in public places. SADEC is joined in the brief by the Second Amendment Law Center, the Delaware State Sportsmen’s Association, the Hawaii Rifle Association, Gun Owners of California, the California Rifle Pistol Association, Federal Firearms Licensees of Illinois, and Operation Blazing Sword-Pink Pistols. You can view the entire brief here.
Our brief recounts the “massive resistance” that has arisen in a handful of ant-ingun states since Bruen, comparing New York’s law to similar efforts in other states, including Illinois. The brief also uses one of the designated “sensitive places,” places that serve alcohol, as a case study to show how the Second Circuit botched the Bruen analysis in at least four different ways. Finally, we argue that the Second Circuit’s reasoning is flawed because it ignores the reality that everyone who carries in modern-day New York is extensively vetted before getting a permit. Before 1900, open carry was generally allowed for anyone, even former criminals. Any comparison to historical “sensitive places” laws that does not account for this difference presents a skewed analysis. New York can’t claim it needs to ban carrying in most places for safety reasons after having already made those with carry permits undergo an extensive vetting process to ensure they are not dangerous.
While this may be an uphill climb, we are hopeful that the Supreme Court will make an exception here given the Second Circuit’s repeated insistence on flouting Bruen. In addition, the Petitioners may be helped out by the circuit split that has now developed. In its ruling, the Second Circuit did at least strike down the private property default “vampire rule”, under which those carrying must have permission before entering a private business open to the public; even the Second Circuit felt that went too far! Remember, this was not the case for the Ninth Circuit, which upheld Hawaii’s similar law in Wolford v. Lopez. We are hopeful that the Supreme Court will grant cert to Antonyuk, Wolford, or both, and urge the Court to do so to vindicate the right to carry.
In addition to our work figighting PICA in Illinois, we have supported amicus briefs in several cases that may impact current or future litigation in Illinois on similar topics. While our current focus is on PICA, it is important for the Illinois 2A community to see the big picture and realize that positive rulings in cases from other states will only bolster similar arguments in Illinois. To continue to make these amicus briefs possible, we need your continued support. Donate generously so we can continue to support the litigation that is shaping the future of Illinois gun owners!