In layman’s terms: The Second Circuit returned an anti-gun ruling even AFTER the Supreme Court told it to reconsider.
On October 24, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals effectively undermined the authority of the Supreme Court when it returned a virtually identical anti-Second Amendment ruling as one it was told, by SCOTUS, to revisit earlier this year.
“This is an outrageous ruling from a court of anti-gun judges,” posted Gun Owners of America on Twitter.
In July of this year, in the case of Antonyuk v. Nigrelli, the Supreme Court GVR’d (Grant, Vacate, Remand back to the lower court) the case with instructions to reconsider the case in light of another recently heard case, Rahimi.
The original ruling out of the Second Circuit upheld a district court’s decision in New York’s Bruen-response bill known as the “Concealed Carry Improvement Act.” The subjects addressed in the case include firearms licensing, sensitive locations, and restricted locations (the so-called “Vampire Rule”) which addresses carrying on private property open to the public. In essence, the Supreme Court told the Appeals court they got it wrong and to try again. Today, the three-judge panel on the Appeals court told the Supreme Court they arrived at the same conclusion in their decision:
Having reconsidered the prior decision in light of Rahimi, and the parties’ supplemental briefing regarding the effect of that decision on our reasoning in this case, we now issue a revised opinion in Antonyuk. We reach the same conclusions that we reached in our prior consolidated opinion. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court’s injunction in part, VACATE it in part, and REMAND the case for further proceedings consistent with this amended opinion.
The appeals court is thus sending the case back to the district court with the injunction in place that the Supreme Court previously lifted – largely banning carry of firearms in many public locations.
Are there any bright spots in this case? The appeals court did affirm you don’t need to turn over your social media accounts to the government when being considered for a concealed carry permit. They also upheld their prior ruling that the “vampire rule” is unconstitutional. That is, you cannot be banned by the government from carrying a firearm in private locations open to the public.
It’s highly unusual to see a lower court snub the Supreme Court’s authority, except in Second Amendment-related cases. Time and again, lower courts have upheld laws that undermine the Bruen decision, but this is the first time that a lower court has outright defied the Supreme Court on the issue when directed to revisit a ruling.
“The Second Circuit got it wrong the first time, SCOTUS told them so and said try again, and this nearly identical ruling is a slap in the face to the Justices and every gun owner across New York,” said Erich Pratt, GOA’s Senior Vice President. “We will continue the fight against Gov. Hochul and anti-gun legislators in Albany until New Yorkers can finally carry for self-defense without infringement.”
CRPA President, Chuck Michel, said, “It’s an over 200-page ruling, but according to the summary, the court has reaffirmed all its prior conclusions. Rahimi changed nothing for the Second Circuit.”
The Second Circuit has reissued its Antonyuk ruling following the GVR from the Supreme Court after Rahimi.
— Chuck Michel (@CRPAPresident) October 24, 2024
It's an over 200-page ruling, but according to the summary, the court has reaffirmed all its prior conclusions. Rahimi changed nothing for the Second Circuit.
One…
Mark Smith, Constitutional lawyer and host of the Four Boxes Diner YouTube channel affirmed this perspective:
… the Rahimi decision does not alter the Bruen analysis; all the Rahimi decision constitutes is an example of the application of the Heller-Bruen methodology and the fact that the Second Circuit Court of Appeals issued the exact same ruling before the Rahimi decision as it just did today after the Rahimi decision proves my point that they did not think Rahimi changed any part of their analysis…
However, he is also of the opinion that the Second Circuit isn’t anti-gun, just unfamiliar with case law (which doesn’t provide much comfort for the Second Amendment community):
This court is not an anti-gun court like we see in the Fourth Circuit out of Virginia and Maryland, or like we see out of the Ninth Circuit in California and Hawaii. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals is not an anti-gun court in the sense that they always rule against gun-related cases. The problem with the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, in my view, is that they are inexperienced with gun laws and with guns as a technology. Although I think this three-judge panel, with whom I am friendly, tries to get the law right, but I believe they do not interpret the law correctly…. Overall this is a short term loss for the Second Amendment.
With a full docket, and considering the case has been sent back to the District Court, the Supreme Court is unlikely to hear this case again any time soon, as it is being heard on interlocutory appeal. In any analysis, this is not a step forward for gun owners or the Second Amendment knowing how long it takes cases to wind their way through the court system.
We will continue to follow this story.
