On April 7, 2025, the United States Supreme Court officially declined to hear Antonyuk v. James, a high-profile challenge to New York’s Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA). As reported by Reuters’ Andrew Chung, this law was New York’s swift and controversial response to the Supreme Court’s own 2022 Bruen decision, which had significantly expanded the right to carry firearms in public. The plaintiffs in Antonyuk argued that New York’s new restrictions violated that very ruling – but the Court decided not to take up the case.
The decision not to grant certiorari (a legal term meaning the Court won’t review the case) leaves the Second Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in place, which upheld most of New York’s CCIA. This includes expanded definitions of “sensitive places” where firearms are banned and stricter licensing criteria for concealed carry. Despite the landmark expansion of gun rights in Bruen, the Court’s silence now raises new questions about how those rights will be interpreted and enforced.
A Major Blow for Gun Rights Advocates
William from Copper Jacket TV responded swiftly to the news in his recent video, calling the outcome disappointing but not entirely surprising. He explained that the Antonyuk case was what’s known as an “interlocutory” appeal, meaning the lower courts had not yet fully resolved all aspects of the case. The Supreme Court traditionally prefers to wait for final judgments before stepping in.
Still, William was quick to point out the high stakes. New York’s attempt to swap the now-invalid “good cause” standard for a concealed carry license with a vague “good moral character” clause essentially repackaged the same restriction the Court struck down in Bruen. As William warned, if courts allow states to simply rename their restrictions and bypass Supreme Court precedent, the effect of those precedents becomes meaningless.
New York’s Law: A Complex Patchwork of Restrictions
The original reporting by Reuters’ Andrew Chung explains the mechanics of the CCIA. Passed in July 2022, just weeks after Bruen, the law introduced sweeping new rules. These included mandatory social media disclosures, cohabitant background checks, and bans on carrying firearms in a wide array of public and private spaces – from schools and government buildings to theaters, bars, and even Manhattan’s Times Square.
The plaintiffs – six New York residents either holding or seeking concealed carry licenses – argued that the law violated the Second Amendment. They asked the Supreme Court to intervene, claiming the Second Circuit improperly relied on 19th-century laws to justify restrictions. But with the Court’s refusal to hear the case, the Second Circuit’s ruling stands.
Attorney Tom Grieve: “Scramble the Jets” Moment
Attorney Tom Grieve, a former state prosecutor and a well-known Second Amendment commentator, delivered an emotional analysis in his video, calling the decision a “Scramble the Jets moment.” Grieve walked through the CCIA’s many controversial provisions – from requiring applicants to surrender their social media history to the state, to forcing them to disclose all adult cohabitants, even minors, for government review.
One of the most alarming features, according to Grieve, is the CCIA’s catch-all clause. It allows licensing officers to demand any “reasonably necessary” information during the application process. “What isn’t related to moral character?” Grieve asked, warning that the clause could open the door to nearly unlimited government intrusion.
The Sensitive Places Expansion
Grieve also dove deep into the law’s expanded “sensitive places” restrictions. Under the CCIA, private property is considered off-limits for carrying firearms unless explicitly stated otherwise by the owner. This flips the traditional standard – where carrying is permitted by default – completely upside down.
He likened it to a First Amendment crisis: “Imagine you couldn’t talk about religion or politics in public unless a store posted a sign saying it’s okay.” Grieve’s point is that these restrictions don’t just regulate guns – they redefine public norms about civil liberties. And now that the Supreme Court has refused to hear the case, those changes remain firmly in place, at least for now.
The Second Circuit’s Role in All of This
As Andrew Chung reported, much of this started when U.S. District Judge Glenn Suddaby initially blocked large parts of the CCIA back in 2022. But in 2024, the Second Circuit reversed most of that decision, allowing New York’s new law to stand. The plaintiffs then appealed to the Supreme Court, asking for clarity on a key issue raised by Bruen: Should courts only use legal traditions from 1791 when interpreting the Second Amendment, or should they also consider laws from 1868, when the 14th Amendment incorporated those rights to the states?
The plaintiffs wanted the Court to stick to 1791. But the Second Circuit relied heavily on mid-to-late 19th-century sources – essentially laws that appeared decades after the Bill of Rights was ratified. That historical lens, critics argue, gives modern states far too much leeway to impose new restrictions.
Why This Matters Beyond New York
William from Copper Jacket TV made a sharp observation: this case doesn’t just affect New York. States like California have already adopted similar “good moral character” language in their licensing laws. Without a clear ruling from the Supreme Court, these states now have a legal blueprint to sidestep Bruen by simply changing the vocabulary.
“If the Supreme Court isn’t going to stand behind its own decisions,” William said, “then anti-gun states will just keep pushing the limits.” His fear is that without accountability, Bruen becomes more of a suggestion than a mandate.
A Strategic Missed Opportunity?
Chuck Michel, President of the California Rifle and Pistol Association, voiced his disappointment on social media but also emphasized strategy. He suggested the denial wasn’t a total loss because it opens the door to bringing the case back once there’s a final judgment. The Antonyuk case may return to the Supreme Court – but not before another lengthy round of litigation.
Still, as attorney Tom Grieve pointed out, this delay lets a dangerous legal framework remain in effect. Once these policies are normalized in the court system, they become much harder to roll back later. It’s like the legal soil has already been tilled – states can now plant all kinds of anti-gun legislation in that ground.
A Dangerous Interpretation of History
Grieve raised another serious concern: the court’s willingness to rely on only two or three 19th-century laws as evidence of a “historical tradition.” If that’s the bar, then nearly any modern gun restriction could be justified using obscure state statutes from 150 years ago. That kind of cherry-picking, Grieve warned, “sets the guardrails for future litigation – and they’re dangerously wide.”
The Bruen ruling insisted that any restriction must align with the nation’s historical understanding of the Second Amendment. But what exactly that “understanding” includes remains unsettled. And by avoiding this case, the Supreme Court allowed that question to go unanswered.
The Next Phase: Death by a Thousand Cuts
As Grieve explained, the path forward is now a long one. Instead of a single sweeping decision from the Supreme Court, gun rights advocates will need to file a series of smaller lawsuits targeting each piece of the CCIA. It’s no longer about winning a war with one strike – it’s about fighting hundreds of skirmishes across the battlefield.
Grieve described it as the beginning of “Phase Two” – a slow, grueling campaign of “death by a thousand cuts.” That strategy may work in the long run, but it means the burden is now on individuals, advocacy groups, and lower courts to do the heavy lifting.
A Concerning Silence from the High Court
Here’s what’s unsettling: the Court that expanded gun rights just three years ago in Bruen now seems hesitant to defend those same rights when challenged. That silence has implications. When the Supreme Court refuses to speak, lower courts fill the vacuum. And those courts are increasingly upholding laws that run directly against what Bruen stood for.
This case was about more than guns – it was about whether constitutional rights can be redefined by semantics. If “good cause” becomes “good moral character” and the law calls that progress, what stops any state from rebranding any constitutional violation into something politically palatable?
What Comes Next
The battle is far from over. As William, Grieve, and Chung all reported, the case is likely to return to the Supreme Court after final decisions are made in the lower courts. But for now, New York’s CCIA remains mostly intact, and similar laws are gaining ground in other states.
Gun owners and Second Amendment advocates are watching closely. The hope is that the Court will eventually reaffirm Bruen with the same clarity and courage it showed in 2022. Until then, the fight moves back to the ground level – one lawsuit at a time.
A former park ranger and wildlife conservationist, Lisa’s passion for survival started with her deep connection to nature. Raised on a small farm in northern Wisconsin, she learned how to grow her own food, raise livestock, and live off the land. Lisa is our dedicated Second Amendment news writer and also focuses on homesteading, natural remedies, and survival strategies. Lisa aims to help others live more sustainably and prepare for the unexpected.