A federal appeals court has upheld part of New York’s gun safety law that requires background checks for ammunition sales. The ruling affirmed a lower court’s decision, denying the challenge to the Concealed Carry Improvement Act from gun rights advocate plaintiffs. The system checks whether someone trying to buy a weapon is a convicted felon, a fugitive from justice, addicted to or using a controlled substance, committed to a mental institution, or convicted for misdemeanor domestic violence. The court rejected the request for an injunction, so the case returns to the lower court.<\/p>\n
ALBANY, N.Y. (NEXSTAR) \u2014 A federal appeals court upheld part of New York\u2019s gun safety law that requires background checks for ammunition sales on Wednesday. The ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed a lower court\u2019s decision, denying the challenge to the Concealed Carry Improvement Act from gun rights advocates, including two Republican state legislators.<\/p>\n
\t \u201cNew York State Firearms Association v. James\u201d concerned aspects of the CCIA that took effect in September 2023 mandating that an ammunition sale has to include:<\/p>\n A background check on the buyer;<\/p>\n A $2.50 fee per background check; and<\/p>\n The seller registering with the Superintendent of the New York State Police or using a licensed intermediary.<\/p>\n The system checks whether someone trying to buy a weapon is a convicted felon, a fugitive from justice, addicted to or using a controlled substance, committed to a mental institution, or convicted for misdemeanor domestic violence. State Police have to build a database of licenses and records for ammunition sales. If the background check shows disqualifying records, the transaction gets delayed, and State Police have to review the application.<\/p>\n \t If denied, the buyer can formally appeal to the Office of the New York State Attorney General. A seller who doesn\u2019t register or use a licensed intermediary faces a $1,000 fine for the first offense and a class A misdemeanor charge for a second offense.<\/p>\n These ammunition background check provisions are currently in effect, although the Second Circuit decision doesn\u2019t concern whether the CCIA is constitutional, so it could still be struck down in the future. The court rejected the request for an injunction, so the case returns to the lower court. The plaintiffs can still submit new evidence.<\/p>\n \t The plaintiffs\u2014including State Senator George Borrello and Assemblymember David DiPietro\u2014sued Steven James, Superintendent of the New York State Police, arguing that the ammunition provisions violate the Second Amendment, keeping them from buying ammunition because of fees, delays, and a broken state system. The three-judge panel concluded that the plaintiffs failed to prove how the law \u201cmeaningfully constrain[s] their ability to \u2018keep\u2019 or \u2018bear\u2019 arms.\u201d<\/p>\n Borrello strongly disagreed with the ruling, calling it a \u201cclear violation of the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens.\u201d The senator argued that CCIA doesn\u2019t improve safety, just \u201cplaces unnecessary burdens on responsible gun owners who follow the law.\u201d He argued that law-abiding New Yorkers in his district cross the border into Pennsylvania to buy ammo rather than follow the CCIA, meaning \u201cfewer sales for local, taxpaying small businesses.\u201d<\/p>\n \t DiPietro also expressed disappointment and agreed that the CCIA blatantly infringes on the rights of innocent New Yorkers. He argued that the state\u2019s liberal elite are hypocrites who give \u201cviolent criminals a longer leash with cashless bail and soft-on-crime policies\u201d while \u201cstrangling responsible gun owners with endless bureaucratic hurdles and fees.\u201d The assemblymember claimed the law represents \u201ca calculated scheme to drive gun store owners out of business, erode our freedoms bit by bit, and achieve through backdoor regulations what they can\u2019t do outright: ban guns altogether.\u201d<\/p>\n New York Attorney General Letitia James released a statement after the ruling celebrating her successful defense \u201cdespite repeated attempts to undermine this commonsense law.\u201d She added, \u201cEvery New Yorker deserves to feel safe in their community and my office will continue to defend our laws and protect public safety.\u201d<\/p>\n \t James\u2019s office previously defended the law in May 2024 when the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York denied the plaintiffs\u2019 motion for an injunction, finding that they \u201chad not shown any likelihood of success on the merits.\u201d<\/p>\n Governor Kathy Hochul signed the CCIA into law in July 2022 in response to the U.S. Supreme Court\u2019s decision in \u201cNew York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen,\u201d which blocked a previous state requirement that concealed carry applicants prove proper cause or a special need to be armed in public. The Second Circuit applied the two-step framework for gun control that SCOTUS created in Bruen. Laws that regulate related activity like buying or maintaining ammo would only be protected if they restrict the core right of possessing or carrying weapons.<\/p>\n \t The plaintiffs couldn\u2019t show that the CCIA affects individual conduct covered by the plain text of the Second Amendment, which is the right to \u201ckeep\u201d and \u201cbear\u201d arms. The court ruled that short delays in the process doesn\u2019t violate the Second Amendment. Plaintiff Aaron Dorr couldn\u2019t complete a background check on September 14, 2023, because the database system was down. But the court determined that his modest wait was a day at most, which \u201cdoes not come close to the \u2018lengthy\u2019 delays\u201d that would meaningfully constrain the right to keep or bear arms.<\/p>\n The $2.50 fee to the State Police covers administrative costs of the background check, which the plaintiffs argued that retailers would pass on to consumers. The appeals court found that because the law imposes the fee on the seller, their personal choice of passing it onto the buyer can\u2019t be blamed on the state government. And under the law, the fee must be less than the actual cost of the background check. According to the court, it\u2019s not \u201cexorbitant or prohibitively expensive,\u201d so doesn\u2019t represent a meaningful restriction.<\/p>\n \t All ammunition sellers have to register with the State Police Superintendent unless they\u2019re already licensed firearm dealers. The court found no evidence that the plaintiffs lacked \u201ceasy access to licensed or registered ammunition sellers,\u201d and that the Second Amendment doesn\u2019t prohibit registrations for sellers.<\/p>\n The legal arm of Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund, Everytown Law, had a representative speak in the case. Janet Carter, Managing Director of Second Amendment Litigation at Everytown Law, welcomed the Second Circuit\u2019s decision, calling background checks for ammunition sales \u201ca common sense public safety measure, and they are constitutional.\u201d<\/p>\n \t A second step of the Bruen framework would\u2019ve required the government to prove that gun laws align with historical, traditional firearm regulations\u2014particularly those existing before 1868. The district court had already concluded that the CCIA would likely pass that test. But the appeals court skipped this step anyway, since the law hadn\u2019t met that meaningful constraint standard. <\/p>\n President Donald Trump appointed all three judges on the Second Circuit panel that unanimously upheld the CCIA: Judges Joseph Bianco, Michael Park, and William Nardini. Their ruling contradicted a recent decision from a different federal appeals court, the Ninth Circuit, which had struck down a similar background check law in California.<\/p>\n
\n\t\tGet the latest news, weather, sports and entertainment delivered right to your inbox!\t<\/a><\/p>\n
\n\t\tNew York defends gun control after GOP letter to DOJ\t<\/a><\/p>\n
\n\t\tStefanik urges Treasury to probe CAIR\u2019s alleged Hamas links\t<\/a><\/p>\n
\n\t\tJudge disarms NY Concealed Carry Improvement Act\t<\/a><\/p>\n
\n\t\tReport: New York\u2019s power grid strained by old infrastructure, demand\t<\/a><\/p>\n
\n\t\tFederal court blocks ban on guns at parks, approves other CCIA regulations\t<\/a><\/p>\n
\n\t\tNew York to appeal after judge OKs radioactive Indian Point water in the Hudson\t<\/a><\/p>\n
\n\t\tSCOTUS vacates NY Circuit Court gun control ruling\t<\/a><\/p>\n