Ivan Antonyuk, et al. v. Steven G. James, In His Official Capacity as Acting Superintendent of New York State Police, et al.

Moments after this Court issued N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), striking down New York’s discretionary firearms licensing regime, New York politicians decried that decision as “reprehensible,” vowing to resist the “insanity” of “gun culture” that “possessed … the Supreme Court.” Rather than following this Court’s decision, New York sought to nullify it through a “Concealed Carry Improvement Act” that makes it more difficult to exercise the right to bear arms in public than before Bruen was decided. Relying almost entirely on a few outlier laws from the late 19th century, rather than common practice at the time the Second Amendment was ratified, the Second Circuit affirmed most of New York’s “Bruen response bill,” sanctioning the requirement that carry license applicants demonstrate their “good moral character” to licensing officials despite Bruen’s rejection of discretionary “suitability” determinations. The Second Circuit also endorsed New York’s firearm bans in all manner of nonsensitive public places, rendering carry licenses of almost no value. The questions presented are:

1. Whether the proper historical time period for ascertaining the Second Amendment’s original meaning is 1791, rather than 1868; and

2. Whether “the people” must convince government officials of their “good moral character” before exercising their Second Amendment right to bear arms in public.