So held Nassau County (N.Y.) trial judge James P. McCormack last week in In the Matter of Kamenshchik, applying the Second Circuit’s recent decision in Antonyuk v. Chiumento.
Antonyuk held (among other things) that “requiring applicants to disclose even pseudonymous names under which they post online imposes an impermissible infringement on Second Amendment rights that is unsupported by analogues in the historical record and moreover presents serious First Amendment concerns.” The Kamenshchik court held that, though Antonyuk upheld some modest discretionary judgment on the government’s part, “particularly in the area of good moral character or dangerousness, and in the nature of following-up on other information provided,” that didn’t extend to the urinalysis requirement. And the Kamenshchik court concluded that the urinalysis requirement wasn’t otherwise authorized under the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision:
If urinalysis is beyond the Licensing Officer’s discretion [authorized by Antonyuk], then it can only be upheld if there is, in Bruen’s parlance, a historical analogue. Not only is there no such historical analogue, but forcing an applicant to submit to urinalysis, in essence, requires them to give up their 4th Amendment rights against unlawful searches and seizures to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights. This court cannot imagine a scenario, under current 2nd Amendment jurisprudence, where that would be allowed. The court is therefore constrained to find the urinalysis requirement is unconstitutional, as applied to Kamenshchik in this matter.
The post Urinalysis Requirement for Gun Carry Permit Likely Unconstitutional appeared first on Reason.com.
