The decision in Antonyuk v. Hochul is yet another dangerous effect of the U.S. Supreme Court’s reckless ruling favoring the NRA's "gun's everywhere" agenda
Washington, DC, October 6, 2022 – Gun violence prevention group Brady is condemning a federal court decision issued today that threatens to invalidate much of New York State’s recently enacted law on the carrying of guns in public.
The decision in Antonyuk v. Hochul is an unfortunate continuation of the repercussions from the U.S. Supreme Court’s June 23 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, which made it harder for governments to restrict the carrying of firearms in public. In response to Bruen, the New York Legislature passed and Gov. Kathy Hochul signed new gun violence prevention measures designed to keep communities safe and comply with the Supreme Court decision. The gun safety law prohibits the carrying of firearms in sensitive places like schools, government buildings, playgrounds, hospitals, and Times Square.
But today, U.S. District Judge Glenn T. Suddaby ruled that even those modest, common-sense gun safety laws went too far, and he imposed a temporary restraining order on parts of the law. But his dangerous order won’t go into effect for at least three days, pending an emergency appeal by the state to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Brady President Kris Brown said:
New Yorkers, like all Americans, do not want their supermarkets, public squares, and child care centers turned into bullet-riddled crime scenes. After the Bruen decision, New York’s leaders delivered what 79 percent of their citizens say they want: a life-saving gun violence prevention law aimed at common-sense licensing requirements and keeping guns out of sensitive places. We strongly object to Judge Suddaby’s dangerous interpretation of the Constitution and New Yorkers’ ability to protect themselves from the reality of gun violence in public places in America.”
Added Brady Counsel Shira Feldman:
“This court’s reading of Bruen is extreme and inconsistent with the text of the Supreme Court’s opinion. The Bruen decision provided examples of sensitive places but did not limit the places considered sensitive to those examples. Judge Suddaby’s interpretation of what is required for a historical ‘analogue’ of sensitive place protection ignores modern realities in a way that the Bruen opinion does not require.
Brady has one powerful mission — to unite all Americans against gun violence. We work across Congress, the courts, and our communities with over 90 grassroots chapters, bringing together young and old, red and blue, and every shade of color to find common ground in common sense. In the spirit of our namesakes Jim and Sarah Brady, we have fought for over 45 years to take action, not sides, and we will not stop until this epidemic ends. It’s in our hands.