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

The "Default Prohibition" Rule

Penal Law Section 265.01-d, enacted as part of the Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA), creates a category of "restricted locations" defined broadly as any private property where the owner or lessee has not affirmatively permitted firearms possession.^[1] Under this provision, a person is guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in a restricted location when that person possesses a firearm, rifle, or shotgun and enters into or remains on private property where the owner or lessee has not permitted such possession "by clear and conspicuous signage indicating that the carrying of firearms, rifles, or shotguns on their property is permitted or by otherwise giving express consent."^[2]

This approach reversed the traditional presumption found in most states: rather than requiring property owners to post "no guns" signs to prohibit carry, New York's CCIA required property owners to post affirmative "guns welcome" signs or provide express verbal consent to permit carry. Without such affirmative permission, firearms are prohibited by default.

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 results in a permanent felony record and revocation of any firearms license.^[3]

The Antonyuk Challenge

The restricted location provision was among the most heavily litigated aspects of the CCIA. In Antonyuk v. James, U.S. District Judge Glenn Suddaby issued a preliminary injunction against PL 265.01-d in November 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. James 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 (Upheld)

The court upheld the default prohibition as applied to private property that is not open to the general public, such as private residences. The Second Circuit found that requiring express permission before carrying a firearm on another person's residential property was consistent with historical property rights.^[5]

Current Legal Status

As of March 2026, the practical effect of the court's ruling is as follows:

• Businesses open to the public: Licensed carry holders may carry firearms in private businesses unless the business owner has posted signage or otherwise communicated that firearms are not permitted.
• Private residences and property not open to the public: Licensed carry holders may not carry firearms on another person's private property without express verbal permission or posted signage affirmatively permitting carry.

The U.S. Supreme Court declined certiorari in Antonyuk v. James on April 7, 2025, leaving the Second Circuit's split ruling in effect.^[7]

Pending: Wolford v. Lopez at the U.S. Supreme Court

On January 20, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Wolford v. Lopez (No. 24-1046), a case that could directly affect New York's private property default rule.^[8] The case challenges Hawaii's law (which closely parallels New York's former default rule) that makes private property open to the public presumptively off-limits to licensed concealed carry holders unless the property owner gives express permission.

The case arose from a three-circuit split: the Ninth Circuit upheld Hawaii's law, but the Second Circuit struck New York's identical provision in Antonyuk, and the Third Circuit struck New Jersey's version in Koons. A decision is expected by June or July 2026.^[9]

What this means for New York: If the Supreme Court upholds Hawaii's law, New York could reimpose the private property default rule (requiring property owners to opt in before licensed carry is permitted). If the Court strikes it down, the Second Circuit's current ruling stands and New York's default remains that licensed carry is permitted on private property open to the public unless the owner posts signage or otherwise communicates that firearms are not allowed.

See also: Antonyuk v. James: The CCIA's Survival in Federal Court