Another Major Victory

ANTONYUK v. HOCHUL (DND 2022).  It is 186 pages so you may not be interested in reading it all.  As with most cases, much of the decision is a review of how the federal rules of temporary restraining injunctions apply.  Then there is the question of standing: do the people who are suing have a basis?  Will they be injured in some serious way if the temporary injunction is not issued?  Example: 

With regard to the Oswego County Defendants' argument that Plaintiff Mann lacks standing, Plaintiff Mann has alleged—and repeatedly sworn in a declaration—that he possesses a concrete intention to carry his firearm in his church (which is adjacent to his residence, where he possesses that firearm). (Dkt. No. 1, at ¶¶ 183-84, 188, 191-95 [Compl.]; Dkt. No. 1, Attach. 9, at ¶¶ 4, 12, 16, 20, 25, 28, 30-33 [Mann Decl.].) Plaintiffs have also adduced evidence that, on July 13, 2022, Defendant Hilton publicly stated that he would be enforcing the CCIA (albeit "conservative[ly]"); on July 20, 2022, Defendant Hilton publicly stated, "Under the new law, taking a legally licensed firearm into any sensitive area-such as a... church...[-]is a felony punishable by up to 1 1/3 to 4 years in prison"; and on August 31, 2022, Defendant Hilton publicly stated, "If you own a firearm please be aware of these new laws as they will effect [sic] all gun owners whether we agree with them or not." (Dkt. No. 1, Attach. 9, ¶ 24 [Mann Decl.].) This is sufficient to establish a credible threat of prosecution under the case law cited in Antonyuk I, 2022 WL 3999791, at *15-16.

With regard to the Oswego County Defendants' argument that Defendant Hilton is not a proper Defendant, the Court rejects that argument because of his particular duty (and willingness) to enforce the CCIA in Oswego County (including Plaintiff Man's church). (Dkt. No. 1, Attach. 9, ¶ 24 [Mann Decl.].) As his defense counsel acknowledged during oral argument, "[T]hat's his job." (Dkt. No. 23, at 40 [Oral Argument Tr.)^[8]

The decision prohibited enforcement of the ban on carrying in places of worship, among others:

Based on the historical analogues located thus far, it does not appear permissible for New York State to restrict concealed carry in "any place, conveyance, or vehicle used for public transportation or public transit, subway cars, train cars, buses, ferries, railroad, omnibus, marine or aviation transportation; or any facility used for or in connection with service in the transportation of passengers, airports, train stations, subway and rail stations, and bus terminals." (as stated subsection "2(n)" of Section 4 of the CCIA). Indeed, historical analogues exist containing specific exceptions permitting the carrying firearms while travelling (presumably because of danger often inherent during travel).^[34] ...

Based on the historical analogues located thus far, it does not appear permissible for New York State to restrict concealed carry in the following place: "the area commonly known as Times Square, as such area is determined and identified by the city of New York; provided such area shall be clearly and conspicuously identified with signage" (as stated in subsection "2(t) of the CCIA). Granted, one might argue that historical statutes banning the carrying of guns in "fairs or markets" are analogous to this prohibition. However, thus far, only two such statutes have been located.^[42] Setting aside the fact that the first one appears to apply only to carrying a gun offensively ("in terror of the Country"), and the fact that the second one appears to depend on royal reign, as stated before, two statues do not make a tradition.

As a result, the Court orders the enforcement of this provision temporarily restrained. 

No whining that the Court's decision in Bruen is not making a difference.   UPDATE: Interesting comment that I missed.  The decision explains why the decision is so long:

it is hardly his fault that the Court has taken so long to prepare this Decision (the length of which has been necessitated less by the breadth the Complaint’s claims as the unprecedented constitutional violations presented by the CCIA [the New York statute in question]).