Federal Appeals Court Strikes New York Signage Requirement

2nd Amendment – R2KBA Current Events This Week
3 - The Beretta Tomcat - Micro-Sized Bite
(Photo: GunsAmerica)

Estimated reading time: 3 minutes

BELLEVUE, WA – A federal appeals court has struck down a New York state law requiring private property owners to post signs allowing concealed carry on property open to the public as part of a massive decision dealing with several separate challenges of the Empire State’s post-Bruen gun control legislation.

The Second Amendment Foundation was involved in two of the four cases decided by the court in its 261-page ruling. They are known as Hardaway v. Chiumento and Christian v. Chiumento. The cases were before the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Christian case challenged the signage requirement. The court noted that the regulated conduct—carrying a firearm for personal protection on private property—“falls within the Second Amendment right to carry.” Thus, the requirement to post signs allowing carry on private property open to the public was struck down. The restriction carried with it a criminal penalty of up to four years imprisonment and was graded as a Class E felony – which would strip the individual of their right to keep and bear arms in perpetuity.

SEE ALSO: Savage Arms Announces AccuCan Suppressor Line

The Hardaway case challenged a tenet of the law prohibiting carry in places of worship. The complaint became moot when the legislature changed the law after SAF sued to allow people such as plaintiff Jimmie Hardaway to carry in his church. In both cases, SAF was joined by the Firearms Policy Coalition.

There was another major win for gun rights in the lengthy decision, in a case not involving SAF. The court struck down a requirement to allow government access to private social media accounts in order to apply for a carry license.

“Our challenges were narrowly constructed, allowing us to win a small but significant victory in the Christian case,” noted SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “Because the legislature changed the law after our lawsuit was filed in the Hardaway case, we consider that a victory as well.”

“These are just two more examples of SAF carrying out its mission to win firearms freedom, one lawsuit at a time,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb.

About SAF

The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms.  Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 720,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.

*** Buy and Sell on GunsAmerica! All Local Sales are FREE! ***

Available on GunsAmerica Now

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  • Jim December 18, 2023, 5:20 pm

    This is a poor explanation of the law that was stricken down. The statement, “a New York state law requiring private property owners to post signs allowing concealed carry on property open to the public ” does not tell the real story. It seems the words, “…for those owners favoring concealed carry” were left out of the law, intentionally.

    In other words, it sounds to me that the wacky NY legislature wanted this passed so the public would be notified whenever they are entering a business which supports 2A and concealed carry. The NY legislature WANTED people to know who supports CC, which would certainly result in lost business.

    They could have simply told private property owners that they are allowed to post a “No Firearms Allowed” sign, which would not have the same business loss effect as demanding that those in favor of CC be forced to inform their customers of their support for CC.

    Very sneaky by the NY legislature, and I am thrilled they got the middle finger for it. BTW, posting a “no firearms allowed” sign does not constitute law, meaning you cannot be arrested for not heeding the sign. You can, however, be told to leave the premises, and if you do not, then you can be arrested for trespass.

  • ADRIAN WELLS December 11, 2023, 12:20 pm


    • Hondo December 15, 2023, 2:37 pm

      It’s Israel you buffoon.

  • paul I'll call you what I want/1st Amendment December 8, 2023, 3:40 pm

    I figure they want the signs so if a criminal breaks in and kills someone then they can say they were invited and not lose a criminal voter!

Send this to a friend