Constitutional Carry in New York

New York does NOT have constitutional carry (permitless carry). A state-issued license under Penal Law 400.00 is required to possess or carry a handgun, whether concealed or openly. There is no lawful way to carry a handgun in public in New York without a license, and there is no separate legal status for open carry of handguns. New York is a licensed-carry state, not a permitless one.

No Permitless Carry Pathway

Possessing a handgun without the required license is a crime in New York, even for residents with no criminal record. The baseline offense, criminal possession of a firearm under Penal Law 265.01-b, makes simple possession of an unlicensed firearm a class E felony. Carrying a loaded handgun outside the home or place of business without a license is criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree under Penal Law 265.03, a class C felony. Lesser possession offenses fall under criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree (Penal Law 265.01, a class A misdemeanor) and the third degree (Penal Law 265.02, a class D felony). The exemptions from these possession offenses, including the exemption for licensed individuals and for certain law enforcement and other categories, are listed in Penal Law 265.20.

Because there is no permitless option, anyone who wants to carry a handgun must complete the full Penal Law 400.00 licensing process described below.

The Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA)

After the U.S. Supreme Court decided New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), on June 23, 2022, New York could no longer require a "proper cause" showing for a carry license. Bruen struck down the discretionary proper-cause standard but expressly stated that "shall issue" licensing regimes, including requirements for fingerprinting, a background check, a mental health records check, and firearms training, remain constitutionally permissible.

In response, the Legislature passed the Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA), signed July 1, 2022 and effective September 1, 2022. The CCIA removed the proper-cause requirement but added new eligibility and procedural requirements to Penal Law 400.00. Key features, all codified in Penal Law 400.00, include:

• Good moral character. Penal Law 400.00(1)(b) requires an applicant to be "of good moral character," which the statute defines as "having the essential character, temperament and judgement necessary to be entrusted with a weapon and to use it only in a manner that does not endanger oneself or others."
• In-person interview. For a carry license under Penal Law 400.00(2)(f), the applicant must meet in person with the licensing officer for an interview. See Penal Law 400.00(1)(o).
• Character references. The applicant must provide the names and contact information of at least four character references who can attest to the applicant's good moral character. See Penal Law 400.00(1)(o)(ii).
• Household disclosure. The applicant must disclose names and contact information for a spouse or domestic partner, other adults in the home, and whether minors reside in the home. See Penal Law 400.00(1)(o)(i).
• Training. The applicant must complete a state-approved firearms safety course. See the training section below.

Training Requirement

Penal Law 400.00(19) requires an applicant for a carry license (a Penal Law 400.00(2)(f) license) to complete an in-person live firearms safety course taught by a duly authorized instructor with a curriculum approved by the Division of Criminal Justice Services and the State Police. The statute sets a minimum of sixteen hours of in-person classroom curriculum plus a minimum of two hours of live-fire range training, for eighteen hours total. The classroom curriculum must cover topics including general firearm safety, safe storage, state and federal gun laws, situational awareness, conflict de-escalation and management, interactions with law enforcement, the sensitive places defined in Penal Law 265.01-e(2) and the restricted-location rule under Penal Law 265.01-d, use of deadly force, suicide prevention, and basic marksmanship. The applicant must score at least 80 percent on a written test and demonstrate live-fire proficiency to receive a certificate of completion.

Licensing Officer Discretion and Appeals

The licensing officer must investigate the application before issuing or renewing a license (Penal Law 400.00(4)), and the officer must act on the application within six months of presentment (Penal Law 400.00(4-b)). An applicant who is denied, not renewed, not recertified, or revoked may request a hearing before the state appeals board within ninety days of the written notice (Penal Law 400.00(4-a)). A general violation of Penal Law 400.00 is itself a class A misdemeanor (Penal Law 400.00(15)).

Active Litigation Over the CCIA

The CCIA has been heavily litigated since it took effect. On the licensing requirements, the governing appellate decision is Antonyuk v. James, 120 F.4th 941, decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on October 24, 2024, after the Supreme Court remanded the case for reconsideration in light of United States v. Rahimi. The Supreme Court denied further review on April 7, 2025.

The Second Circuit upheld most of the CCIA's core licensing requirements, including the good-moral-character standard, the in-person interview, character references, and the training requirement. Three litigation outcomes matter for accuracy:

• Social media disclosure was struck down. The original CCIA required applicants to disclose a list of their social media accounts from the prior three years. That requirement was invalidated and is no longer enforceable, even though it still appears in the text of Penal Law 400.00(1)(o)(iv).
• The private-property default was held unconstitutional. In Christian v. James, No. 24-2847 (2d Cir. May 18, 2026), the Second Circuit held the Penal Law 265.01-d express-consent default unconstitutional as applied to private property open to the public, and in Wolford v. Lopez, No. 24-1046 (June 25, 2026), the U.S. Supreme Court held that such default bans violate the Second and Fourteenth Amendments nationwide. See the restricted-locations discussion below.
• The place-of-worship category is enjoined. Antonyuk enjoined enforcement of the place-of-worship category in Penal Law 265.01-e(2)(c). A licensee may carry at a place of worship unless the property owner or institution prohibits it. The public-parks category, by contrast, was upheld in Christian v. James and remains enforceable.

The remaining sensitive-location categories were upheld in Antonyuk and remain enforceable as written.

Where a License Does Not Authorize Carry

A valid carry license does not allow carry everywhere. Two separate criminal statutes restrict where a licensee may go armed.

Sensitive Locations (Penal Law 265.01-e)

Penal Law 265.01-e makes it a class E felony to possess a firearm, rifle, or shotgun in a "sensitive location" when the person knows or reasonably should know the location is sensitive. The statutory list in Penal Law 265.01-e(2) is long and includes, among others:

• Government buildings used for government administration, including courts
• Health and behavioral health facilities
• Places of worship (this category is enjoined; see the note below)
• Libraries, public playgrounds, public parks, and zoos
• Schools, colleges, universities, and childcare and preschool programs
• Public transportation, including subways, buses, trains, ferries, airports, and bus terminals
• Establishments licensed for on-premises consumption of alcohol or cannabis
• Theaters, stadiums, museums, amusement parks, conference centers, and gaming facilities
• Polling places
• Protests and other gatherings to exercise constitutional rights
• The area commonly known as Times Square, where identified with signage

The statute exempts certain people in Penal Law 265.01-e(3), including active and retired law enforcement officers carrying under 18 U.S.C. 926B and 926C, designated peace officers, certain security guards, and active-duty military, among others. The place-of-worship category in Penal Law 265.01-e(2)(c) is enjoined under Antonyuk v. James (120 F.4th 941, 2d Cir. 2024, cert denied 2025): a licensee may carry at a place of worship unless the property owner or institution prohibits it. The text remains on the books, including its exemption for persons responsible for security there, but the category is not enforceable against licensees. Public parks stay on the prohibited list; Christian v. James (2d Cir. May 18, 2026) upheld the parks ban.

Restricted Locations on Private Property (Penal Law 265.01-d)

As written, Penal Law 265.01-d made it a class E felony to carry a firearm onto private property unless the owner or lessee permitted firearms by posting clear and conspicuous signage allowing them or by giving express consent. That express-consent default has been struck down. In Christian v. James, No. 24-2847 (2d Cir. May 18, 2026), the Second Circuit held the default unconstitutional as applied to private property open to the public, and in Wolford v. Lopez, No. 24-1046 (June 25, 2026), the U.S. Supreme Court held that such express-consent default bans violate the Second and Fourteenth Amendments nationwide.

The operative rule today: a licensee may carry on private property that is open to the public, such as a store, diner, or gas station, unless the owner actually prohibits it by conspicuous signage or actual notice. A carrier does not need express permission before carrying. Property owners keep the right to exclude firearms, and a licensee must honor a posted prohibition or a direct request to leave.

Self-Defense: Duty to Retreat, No Stand Your Ground

New York is not a stand-your-ground state. Under Penal Law 35.15, a person may not use deadly physical force if he or she knows that he or she can retreat with complete personal safety to oneself and others, except that there is no duty to retreat when the person is in his or her own dwelling and is not the initial aggressor (the Castle exception under Penal Law 35.15(2)(a)(i)). Deadly force is also permitted without retreat against certain serious crimes such as kidnapping, robbery, forcible sexual offenses, and burglary as specified in Penal Law 35.15(2)(b) and (c). Defense of premises and use of force to prevent a burglary are addressed separately in Penal Law 35.20.

Other New York Firearm Overlays

Beyond licensing and carry location rules, New York imposes additional restrictions that a carrier should know:

• Assault weapons (SAFE Act). New York defines and prohibits "assault weapons" under Penal Law 265.00(22), with possession offenses under Penal Law 265.02.
• Magazine capacity. A "large capacity ammunition feeding device" is defined in Penal Law 265.00(23) as a magazine or similar device that accepts, or can be readily converted to accept, more than ten rounds. New York's magazine limit is ten rounds. The earlier seven-round load limit was struck down in federal court (New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Cuomo) and is not enforced.
• New York City. New York City operates its own separate and stricter handgun licensing scheme. A license issued elsewhere in the state is generally not valid in New York City without a special permit from the NYPD License Division. See Penal Law 400.00(6) and New York City Administrative Code 10-131 and Title 38 of the Rules of the City of New York. Treat New York City as a separate jurisdiction.

Federal Baseline

Federal law applies on top of New York law. Federal prohibited-person categories appear in 18 U.S.C. 922(g) (note that persons "under indictment" are addressed separately in 18 U.S.C. 922(n), not 922(g)). Carrying a firearm into the secured area of an airport or onto an aircraft is a federal crime under 49 U.S.C. 46505. Off-duty and retired qualified law enforcement officers carry under the federal Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act, 18 U.S.C. 926B and 926C, which is a federal authorization and not a New York state exemption.

Bottom Line

New York has no constitutional or permitless carry. To carry a handgun you must obtain a Penal Law 400.00 license, which after the CCIA requires good moral character, an in-person interview, four character references, household disclosure, and eighteen hours of approved training (sixteen classroom plus two live-fire). Even with a license, carry is barred in most of the sensitive locations listed in Penal Law 265.01-e, including public parks. The place-of-worship category is enjoined under Antonyuk v. James, so a licensee may carry there unless the owner or institution prohibits it. The private-property default in Penal Law 265.01-d was held unconstitutional by Christian v. James (2d Cir. May 18, 2026) and Wolford v. Lopez (U.S. June 25, 2026), so a licensee may carry on private property open to the public unless the owner prohibits it by signage or actual notice. The social media disclosure requirement has also been invalidated. New York imposes a duty to retreat outside the home (Penal Law 35.15) and is not a stand-your-ground state. New York City has its own stricter licensing system.

Key Legal References

• Penal Law 400.00 - Licensing and other provisions relating to firearms (good moral character, interview, references, training, appeals)
• Penal Law 265.01-b - Criminal possession of a firearm (class E felony)
• Penal Law 265.01, 265.02, 265.03 - Criminal possession of a weapon, fourth, third, and second degree
• Penal Law 265.01-d - Criminal possession of a weapon in a restricted location (express-consent default held unconstitutional as applied to property open to the public; see Christian v. James and Wolford v. Lopez)
• Penal Law 265.01-e - Criminal possession of a firearm in a sensitive location (class E felony)
• Penal Law 265.20 - Exemptions
• Penal Law 265.00(22) and (23) - Assault weapon and large capacity ammunition feeding device definitions
• Penal Law 35.15 and 35.20 - Justification; defense of a person and defense of premises
• New York City Administrative Code 10-131; Title 38, Rules of the City of New York - NYC handgun licensing
• New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022)
• Antonyuk v. James, 120 F.4th 941 (2d Cir. Oct. 24, 2024), cert. denied (Apr. 7, 2025)
• Christian v. James, No. 24-2847 (2d Cir. May 18, 2026)
• Wolford v. Lopez, No. 24-1046 (U.S. June 25, 2026)
• 18 U.S.C. 922(g), 922(n), 926B, 926C; 49 U.S.C. 46505