Second Amendment claim in New York

2026Even assuming the validity of defendant's waiver of appeal, it would not foreclose from review his Second Amendment claim, and he has standing to raise his facial challenge to the constitutionality of New York's firearm licensing scheme, notwithstanding that he never applied to obtain a firearm license ( see People v Johnson , — NY3d —, —, 2025 NY Slip Op 06528, *2 [2025]).

2026While defendant, who, had he applied for a gun license would have been barred from obtaining one because he was under 21 years old, has standing to assert his Second Amendment challenge to the age requirement in New York's gun licensing law in light of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v Bruen ( 597 US 1 [2022]) ( see People v Johnson , — NY3d &mdash, 2025 NY Slip Op 06528, *6 [2025]; People v Jhowalli S. , — AD3d — , 2026 NY Slip Op 00320, *1 [1st Dept 2026]), the challenge is without merit.

2026As an alternative holding, and to the extent the record allows review, we find that he was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel by counsel's failure to challenge New York's good moral character provision ( see People v Caban , 5 NY3d 143, 152 [2005]).

2026In any event, counsel was not ineffective because the claim had "little or no chance of success" (<i>People v Caban</i>, 5 NY3d 143, 152 [2005] [internal quotation marks omitted]). </p> <p>We perceive no basis for reducing the term of postrelease supervision.</p> <p>THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.</p> <p>ENTERED: April 23, 2026</p> </div> <div> <footer> <div> <p>Court Decisions</p> All Court Decisions Official Reports Service Bound Volumes Decision Search </div> <div> <p>Resources</p> RSS Feeds Style Manual Citation Tools Opin

2025Defendant's contention that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance in failing to raise his Second Amendment challenge is unreviewable on direct appeal because it involves matters not reflected in the record and, thus, must be raised in a CPL 440.10 motion ( see People v Gomez , 186 AD3d 422, 423-424 [1st Dept 2020]; see also Khan , 225 AD3d at 552-553).

2025Defendant's contention that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance in failing to raise his Second Amendment challenge is unreviewable on direct appeal because it involves matters not reflected in the record and, thus, must be raised in a CPL 440.10 motion ( see People v Gomez , 186 AD3d 422, 423-424 [1st Dept 2020]; see also Khan , 225 AD3d at 552-553).

2025As an alternative holding, defendant lacks standing to assert a Second Amendment challenge to New York's gun-licensing regime because he did not apply for a license ( see People v Johnson, 225 AD3d at 455 [1st Dept 2024]; see also United States v Decastro , 682 F3d 160, 164 [2d Cir 2012], cert denied 568 US 1092 [2013]).

2025As an alternative holding, defendant lacks standing to assert a Second Amendment challenge to New York's gun-licensing regime because he did not apply for a license ( see People v Johnson, 225 AD3d at 455 [1st Dept 2024]; see also United States v Decastro , 682 F3d 160, 164 [2d Cir 2012], cert denied 568 US 1092 [2013]).

2026While defendant, who, had he applied for a gun license would have been barred from obtaining one because he was under 21 years old, has standing to assert his Second Amendment challenge to the age requirement in New York's gun licensing law in light of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v Bruen ( 597 US 1 [2022]) ( see People v Johnson , — NY3d &mdash, 2025 NY Slip Op 06528, *6 [2025]; People v Jhowalli S. , — AD3d — , 2026 NY Slip Op 00320, *1 [1st Dept 2026]), the challenge is without merit.

2026Although the United States Supreme Court's decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v Bruen , 597 US 1 [2022], was issued just two weeks before the sentencing proceeding, defendant had ample opportunity to raise a Second Amendment challenge, where the Supreme Court had granted certiorari in Bruen more than a year before defendant's plea.

2025As an alternative holding, defendant lacks standing to assert a Second Amendment challenge to New York's gun-licensing regime because he did not apply for a license ( see People v Johnson, 225 AD3d at 455 [1st Dept 2024]; see also United States v Decastro , 682 F3d 160, 164 [2d Cir 2012], cert denied 568 US 1092 [2013]).

2025As an alternative holding, defendant lacks standing to assert a Second Amendment challenge to New York's gun-licensing regime because he did not apply for a license ( see People v Johnson, 225 AD3d at 455 [1st Dept 2024]; see also United States v Decastro , 682 F3d 160, 164 [2d Cir 2012], cert denied 568 US 1092 [2013]).

2026Defendant's challenges to the substance of his probation conditions survive defendant's wavier of the right to appeal and do not require preservation because those challenges implicate the legality of the sentence ( see People v Lowndes , 239 AD3d 574 , 575 [1st Dept 2025], lv denied 44 NY3d 1012 [2025]; People v Arias , 210 AD3d 593, 594 [1st Dept 2022], lv denied 39 NY3d 1109 [2023]).

2026Defendant's challenges to the substance of his probation conditions survive defendant's wavier of the right to appeal and do not require preservation because those challenges implicate the legality of the sentence ( see People v Lowndes , 239 AD3d 574, 575 [1st Dept 2025], lv denied 44 NY3d 1012 [2025]; People v Arias , 210 AD3d 593, 594 [1st Dept 2022], lv denied 39 NY3d 1109 [2023]).

2026See Bruen, 597 US at 27. [FN2] The defense relies heavily on the discredited reasoning in Lara v. [*4]Commissioner of Pennsylvania State Police, 91 F4th 122 (3d Cir 2024), in which a Third Circuit panel found that because in the Founding era, Pennsylvania did not restrict eighteen to twenty-one year olds from keeping and bearing arms the courts now must follow along.

2026See Bruen, 597 US at 27 . [FN2] The defense relies heavily on the discredited reasoning in Lara v. [*4]Commissioner of Pennsylvania State Police, 91 F4th 122 (3d Cir 2024), in which a Third Circuit panel found that because in the Founding era, Pennsylvania did not restrict eighteen to twenty-one year olds from keeping and bearing arms the courts now must follow along.

2026As an alternative holding, we find it unavailing ( see Matter of Caputo v Kelly , 117 AD3d 644, 644 [1st Dept 2014]; see also Antonyuk v James , 120 F4th 941 , 1001 [2d Cir 2024]).

2026As an alternative holding, we find it unavailing ( see Matter of Caputo v Kelly , 117 AD3d 644, 644 [1st Dept 2014]; see also Antonyuk v James , 120 F4th 941, 1001 [2d Cir 2024]).

2026Defendant has failed to establish that his conviction is unconstitutional under Bruen , and this Court has previously held that New York's age restriction on gun licensing does not offend the Second Amendment ( see Jhowalli S. , 2026 NY Slip Op 00320 , *1, citing People v Maldonado , 230 AD3d 1069 , 1070 [1st Dept 2024], lv denied 42 NY3d 1053 [2024]).

2026While defendant, who, had he applied for a gun license would have been barred from obtaining one because he was under 21 years old, has standing to assert his Second Amendment challenge to the age requirement in New York's gun licensing law in light of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v Bruen ( 597 US 1 [2022]) ( see People v Johnson , — NY3d &mdash, 2025 NY Slip Op 06528, *6 [2025]; People v Jhowalli S. , — AD3d — , 2026 NY Slip Op 00320, *1 [1st Dept 2026]), the challenge is without merit.

2025That turns, as always, on what arguments were made with "sufficient specificity" in the trial court ( People v Robinson , 88 NY2d 1001, 1002 [1996]; see also People v Baumann & Sons Buses, Inc., 6 NY3d 404, 408 [2006] [applying same rule to a constitutional challenge]).

2025That turns, as always, on what arguments were made with "sufficient specificity" in the trial court ( People v Robinson , 88 NY2d 1001, 1002 [1996]; see also People v Baumann & Sons Buses, Inc., 6 NY3d 404, 408 [2006] [applying same rule to a constitutional challenge]).

2025Without opining on that question, we note that the Supreme Court has made clear that "the Second Amendment permits the disarmament of individuals who pose a credible threat to the physical safety of others" ( Rahimi , 602 US at 693; see also United States v Duarte , 137 F4th 743, 761 [9th Cir 2025] [upholding the federal statute prohibiting firearm possession by convicted felons against a Second Amendment challenge]; Vincent v Bondi , 127 F4th 1263, 1265 [10th Cir 2025] [same]; United States v Hunt , 123 F4th 697, 708 [4th Cir. 2024], cert denied 145 S Ct 2756 [2025] [same]).

2025Without opining on that question, we note that the Supreme Court has made clear that "the Second Amendment permits the disarmament of individuals who pose a credible threat to the physical safety of others" ( Rahimi , 602 US at 693; see also United States v Duarte , 137 F4th 743, 761 [9th Cir 2025] [upholding the federal statute prohibiting firearm possession by convicted felons against a Second Amendment challenge]; Vincent v Bondi , 127 F4th 1263, 1265 [10th Cir 2025] [same]; United States v Hunt , 123 F4th 697, 708 [4th Cir. 2024], cert denied 145 S Ct 2756 [2025] [same]).

2025As an alternative holding, we find that counsel was not ineffective ( see People v Stultz , 2 NY3d 277, 287 [2004]).

2025Without opining on that question, we note that the Supreme Court has made clear that "the Second Amendment permits the disarmament of individuals who pose a credible threat to the physical safety of others" ( Rahimi , 602 US at 693; see also United States v Duarte , 137 F4th 743, 761 [9th Cir 2025] [upholding the federal statute prohibiting firearm possession by convicted felons against a Second Amendment challenge]; Vincent v Bondi , 127 F4th 1263, 1265 [10th Cir 2025] [same]; United States v Hunt , 123 F4th 697, 708 [4th Cir. 2024], cert denied 145 S Ct 2756 [2025] [same]).

2025Without opining on that question, we note that the Supreme Court has made clear that "the Second Amendment permits the disarmament of individuals who pose a credible threat to the physical safety of others" ( Rahimi , 602 US at 693; see also United States v Duarte , 137 F4th 743, 761 [9th Cir 2025] [upholding the federal statute prohibiting firearm possession by convicted felons against a Second Amendment challenge]; Vincent v Bondi , 127 F4th 1263, 1265 [10th Cir 2025] [same]; United States v Hunt , 123 F4th 697, 708 [4th Cir. 2024], cert denied 145 S Ct 2756 [2025] [same]).

2025That turns, as always, on what arguments were made with "sufficient specificity" in the trial court ( People v Robinson , 88 NY2d 1001, 1002 [1996]; see also People v Baumann & Sons Buses, Inc., 6 NY3d 404, 408 [2006] [applying same rule to a constitutional challenge]).

2025That turns, as always, on what arguments were made with "sufficient specificity" in the trial court ( People v Robinson , 88 NY2d 1001, 1002 [1996]; see also People v Baumann & Sons Buses, Inc., 6 NY3d 404, 408 [2006] [applying same rule to a constitutional challenge]).

2025Defendant's conclusory assertion that an application would have been futile because he did not meet the minimum age requirement under Penal Law § 400.00(1)(a) fails to constitute a "substantial showing of futility" ( Antonyuk v James , 120 F4th 941, 978-979 [2d Cir 2024], cert denied — US —, 2025 WL 1020368 [2025]) sufficient to excuse the "threshold requirement for standing" ( Jackson-Bey v Hanslmaier , 115 F3d 1091, 1096 [2d Cir 1997]) since applicants may be exempted from the age restriction under certain conditions ( see Penal Law § 400.00[1][a]).

2025Defendant's conclusory assertion that an application would have been futile because he did not meet the minimum age requirement under Penal Law § 400.00(1)(a) fails to constitute a "substantial showing of futility" ( Antonyuk v James , 120 F4th 941, 978-979 [2d Cir 2024], cert denied — US —, 2025 WL 1020368 [2025]) sufficient to excuse the "threshold requirement for standing" ( Jackson-Bey v Hanslmaier , 115 F3d 1091, 1096 [2d Cir 1997]) since applicants may be exempted from the age restriction under certain conditions ( see Penal Law § 400.00[1][a]).

2025Without opining on that question, we note that the Supreme Court has made clear that "the Second Amendment permits the disarmament of individuals who pose a credible threat to the physical safety of others" ( Rahimi , 602 US at 693; see also United States v Duarte , 137 F4th 743, 761 [9th Cir 2025] [upholding the federal statute prohibiting firearm possession by convicted felons against a Second Amendment challenge]; Vincent v Bondi , 127 F4th 1263, 1265 [10th Cir 2025] [same]; United States v Hunt , 123 F4th 697, 708 [4th Cir. 2024], cert denied 145 S Ct 2756 [2025] [same]).

2025Without opining on that question, we note that the Supreme Court has made clear that "the Second Amendment permits the disarmament of individuals who pose a credible threat to the physical safety of others" ( Rahimi , 602 US at 693; see also United States v Duarte , 137 F4th 743, 761 [9th Cir 2025] [upholding the federal statute prohibiting firearm possession by convicted felons against a Second Amendment challenge]; Vincent v Bondi , 127 F4th 1263, 1265 [10th Cir 2025] [same]; United States v Hunt , 123 F4th 697, 708 [4th Cir. 2024], cert denied 145 S Ct 2756 [2025] [same]).

2025Without opining on that question, we note that the Supreme Court has made clear that "the Second Amendment permits the disarmament of individuals who pose a credible threat to the physical safety of others" ( Rahimi , 602 US at 693; see also United States v Duarte , 137 F4th 743, 761 [9th Cir 2025] [upholding the federal statute prohibiting firearm possession by convicted felons against a Second Amendment challenge]; Vincent v Bondi , 127 F4th 1263, 1265 [10th Cir 2025] [same]; United States v Hunt , 123 F4th 697, 708 [4th Cir. 2024], cert denied 145 S Ct 2756 [2025] [same]).

2025Without opining on that question, we note that the Supreme Court has made clear that "the Second Amendment permits the disarmament of individuals who pose a credible threat to the physical safety of others" ( Rahimi , 602 US at 693; see also United States v Duarte , 137 F4th 743, 761 [9th Cir 2025] [upholding the federal statute prohibiting firearm possession by convicted felons against a Second Amendment challenge]; Vincent v Bondi , 127 F4th 1263, 1265 [10th Cir 2025] [same]; United States v Hunt , 123 F4th 697, 708 [4th Cir. 2024], cert denied 145 S Ct 2756 [2025] [same]).

2024As a result, the argument inarguably was unpreserved for appeal ( see CPL § 470.05[2]; People v Cabrera , 41 NY3d 35 , 51 [2023]; People v Bailey , 32 NY3d 70, 78 [2018]).

2024As a result, the argument inarguably was unpreserved for appeal ( see CPL § 470.05[2]; People v Cabrera , 41 NY3d 35 , 51 [2023]; People v Bailey , 32 NY3d 70, 78 [2018]).