PL 265.01-d:
Restricted Locations (Private Property Default)

The Rule in the Statute and the Rule Courts Permit

Penal Law 265.01-d(1) still contains an express-consent rule for carrying a firearm, rifle, or shotgun on private property. That text cannot be read by itself. In Christian v. James, the Second Circuit affirmed a permanent injunction against enforcing the rule on private property open to the public. The Supreme Court then held in Wolford v. Lopez that a state may not presume licensed carry is forbidden on private property open to the public merely because the owner has not expressly authorized it.^[1][2]

Property owners remain free to prohibit firearms through a sign, direct notice, or another lawful property policy. The decisions do not create a right to ignore an owner's prohibition, and they do not decide every circumstance involving private property that is not open to the public.

Penalties

Criminal possession of a weapon in a restricted location is a Class E felony under PL 265.01-d, carrying a maximum sentence of up to four years in state prison. Probation is available for first-time offenders. A conviction creates a felony record and results in firearms-license revocation. Eligible conviction records may later be sealed for certain civil background checks, while remaining accessible to law enforcement and other authorized recipients.^[3]

The Antonyuk Challenge

The restricted location provision was challenged in Antonyuk. In Antonyuk v. Hochul, U.S. District Judge Glenn Suddaby issued a preliminary injunction against PL 265.01-d on November 7, 2022, finding that the default prohibition lacked a historical analogue under the Bruen framework.^[4]

On December 8, 2023, the Second Circuit issued its consolidated decision in Antonyuk v. Chiumento and three related cases. The court took a nuanced approach to PL 265.01-d, drawing a distinction between two categories of private property:^[5]

Private Property Open to the Public (Struck Down)

The Second Circuit upheld the district court's injunction against PL 265.01-d as applied to private property held open to the general public, such as gas stations, grocery stores, restaurants, and retail businesses. The court found that requiring business owners to affirmatively opt in to permitting firearms, rather than opting out, lacked a historical analogue and was functionally equivalent to a ban on carrying in commercial areas.^[6]

Private Property Not Open to the Public

The Second Circuit did not decide whether the Second Amendment protects carrying on private property not open to the public, such as a private residence. It modified the preliminary injunction so that it covered only private property open to the public and remanded the remaining issue for further proceedings. On September 30, 2026, the district court dismissed the Antonyuk claims concerning private property both open and not open to the public without prejudice. The decision did not hold that the default rule for closed private property was constitutional.^[5]

Current Legal Status

New York may not enforce the default opt-in rule against licensed carriers on private property open to the public. The September 30, 2026 dismissal of the Antonyuk private-property claims did not lift the permanent injunction affirmed in Christian v. James. The owner may still exclude firearms. Staff should distinguish among property open to the public, property closed to the public, and property where the owner has communicated a prohibition.

2026 Decisions: Christian and Wolford

On May 18, 2026, the Second Circuit affirmed the permanent injunction in Christian v. James as applied to private property open to the public. On June 25, 2026, the Supreme Court decided Wolford v. Lopez and rejected Hawaii's materially similar express-consent rule for property open to the public. Wolford reversed and remanded the Hawaii case. It did not prevent owners from prohibiting carry on their own property.^[3]