Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that New York State's Concealed Carry Improvement Act is unconstitutional.

Subjects: Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues, Constitution and constitutional amendments, Firearms and explosives, Judicial review and appeals, New York State

Summary:  <p>This resolution expresses the sense of the House of Representatives that the courts should find New York's Concealed Carry Improvement Act unconstitutional and that all states should pass legislation supporting Second Amendment rights.</p>

<html><body><pre>[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 45 Introduced in House (IH)]

&lt;DOC&gt;






118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 45

  Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that New York 
      State's Concealed Carry Improvement Act is unconstitutional.


_______________________________________________________________________


                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 17, 2023

 Ms. Tenney (for herself, Ms. Stefanik, Mr. Langworthy, and Mr. Issa) 
submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee 
                            on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION


 
  Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that New York 
      State's Concealed Carry Improvement Act is unconstitutional.

Whereas the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States guarantees 
        the right of Americans to keep and bear arms;
Whereas the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in McDonald v. City of 
        Chicago that ``the right to keep and bear arms [is] among those 
        fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty'';
Whereas the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in NYSRPA v. Bruen that New 
        York State's Sullivan law is unconstitutional and the Second Amendment 
        cannot be subject to a balancing test;
Whereas the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the Second Amendment 
        does not distinguish between the right to keep and bear arms in one's 
        home and in public;
Whereas the Supreme Court of the United States in District of Columbia v. Heller 
        ruled that the Government cannot declare somewhere a ``sensitive place'' 
        simply because it is crowded and generally protected by the police;
Whereas New York State has passed the Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA) to 
        unconstitutionally restrict the ability to keep and bear arms;
Whereas the CCIA abuses the ability of the State to declare certain locations as 
        ``sensitive places'' where concealed carry is not permitted;
Whereas the CCIA declares ``Times Square'', all demonstrations and gatherings, 
        and public sidewalks during ``special event[s]'' to be ``sensitive 
        places'', contradicting the precedent of the Supreme Court of the United 
        States;
Whereas the CCIA violates private property rights by automatically declaring all 
        private property to be a ``sensitive place'';
Whereas the CCIA requires concealed carry license applicants to provide 3 years 
        of social media posts to licensing officers to review their ``character 
        and conduct'';
Whereas this social media review uses overly broad language that could violate 
        concealed carry license applicants' First and Fourth Amendment rights 
        and be used to target individuals based on their political opinions;
Whereas the CCIA fails to comply with the doctrine of NYSRPA v. Bruen that gun 
        laws must be rooted in the ``history, text, and tradition'' of the 
        country;
Whereas Judge Glenn Suddaby, a judge for the United States District Court for 
        the Northern District of New York, ruled in Antonyuk v. Bruen that the 
        key provisions of the CCIA are unconstitutional;
Whereas plaintiffs in Antonyuk v. Bruen and in Antonyuk v. Nigrelli found that 
        to feign compliance with the NYSRPA v. Bruen ruling, New York State used 
        laws that demonstrate an invidiously discriminatory animus towards 
        religion, national origin, and race, including slave codes, as 
        historical analogues;
Whereas Judge Glenn Suddaby also granted a Temporary Restraining Order in the 
        subsequent case Antonyuk v. Nigrelli to protect New Yorkers from a wide 
        swath of the State's unconstitutionally enacted Second Amendment 
        infringement; and
Whereas there have now been multiple New Yorkers suing the State of New York 
        over the CCIA to protect their constitutional rights: Now, therefore, be 
        it
    Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives 
that--
            (1) New York State's Concealed Carry Improvement Act 
        violates the rights of New Yorkers under the Second Amendment 
        to the Constitution of the United States and is 
        unconstitutional;
            (2) the courts should immediately strike down the Concealed 
        Carry Improvement Act as unconstitutional; and
            (3) all States should pass legislation supporting Second 
        Amendment rights instead of trying to restrict or undermine 
        Americans' constitutional rights.
                                 &lt;all&gt;
</pre></body></html>