NEW YORK — On May 18, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals issued a significant pro-Second Amendment decision in a challenge to the state’s Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA) as it relates to prohibiting firearms possession on private property.
“The FPC Grassroots Army put a stake in the heart of New York’s ‘vampire rule’ carry ban today. We’ll keep fighting in this and other cases to eliminate unconstitutional bans on carry in public parks so people can defend their lives in these public places,” said FPC President Brandon Combs in an email statement.
Oral arguments in Christian v. James took place in June of 2025, with the court taking approximately a year to render its decision.
Circuit Judges Bianco, Menashi, and Lee affirmed a permanent injunction against the private property provision (commonly called the “vampire rule”), as applied to private property open to the public, reversing the state’s default rule that the presumption is that firearms are banned, even if not signed.
The court concluded in its 43-page decision that the provision “as applied to private property open to the public, is unconstitutional because the State did not carry its burden of demonstrating that the restriction falls within our Nation’s historical tradition of gun regulations, as required under the framework set forth in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen.”
Frustratingly, the court also ruled in favor of the state with regard to the Public Parks Provision, which bans carrying firearms in “sensitive places,” including public parks – public locations where individuals are most likely to need to defend themselves.
Judge Menashi wrote separately to dissent with the majority’s position that upheld a ban in public parks:
I disagree with the majority that the Public Parks Provision, N.Y. Penal Law Section 265.01-e(2)(d), is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearms regulation. Regulations during the founding period restricted the misuse of firearms and the manner of carriage but did not prohibit carriage in public parks or other places reserved for recreation and public gatherings.
Amusingly, the court quotes Judge VanDyke’s dissent (from denial of rehearing en banc in Wolford v. Lopez) as to the practical application that New York’s law has on individuals: “only those who aimlessly wander streets and sidewalks without ever planning to enter a store, park, or other private or public establishment will be able to carry a firearm.”
The Second Circuit’s recent decision in this case reinforces and deepens the existing circuit split on “vampire rule”-style default bans for carry on private property open to the public.
In September of 2024, the Ninth Circuit upheld similar “vampire rule” laws in California and Hawaii. Following that, in October of 2025, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a limited review of the Ninth Circuit’s decision in that case. A Department of Justice amicus brief, filed by AAG Harmeet Dhillon, strongly encouraged the Supreme Court to hear this case. The brief was a historical first, representing the first time under the Trump administration that the DOJ formally indicated (in writing, nonetheless) its position on the Second Amendment, outside of the executive order directed towards it by President Trump.
