BY JEFF CHUDZINSKI
North Country This Week

CANTON — St. Lawrence County Attorney Steve Button will act “of counsel” in a legal challenge to the Conceal Carry Improvement Act (CCIA) that could set the tone for future legal challenges to Governor Kathy Hochul’s gun control measures passed earlier this summer.

County Legislators on the Finance Committee authorized the measure with a resolution during the committee’s Sept. 26 meeting.

During a previous board meeting on Sept. 12, officials passed a resolution stating Button could only pursue legal action in such challenges if authorized by the legislature.

The case that Button will act “of counsel” is known as Antonyuk v. Bruen. The case was previously heard by Justice Glenn T. Suddaby who ultimately ordered the complaint dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Now the case has been re-filed with new plaintiffs in addition to Antonyuk. A hearing is set for Thursday, Sept. 29 at 11 a.m. at which time Judge Suddaby could potentially issue a temporary restraining order or injunction against the new laws.

The resolution, which was sponsored by Finance Committee Chair Kevin Acres, was co-sponsored by Legislators Joseph Lightfoot, Rita Curran, Tony Arquiett, Larry Denesha, Daniel Fay, Bill Sheridan and Rick Perkins.

Lightfoot spoke at length about the odds of the legal challenge passing muster, saying the judge’s previous decision reflected well on the argument put forth on behalf of lawful gun owners.

“When a judge, a federal judge particularly, comes out and makes a comment as to his feelings about the constitutionality of something that he has read chapter and verse about, I think it bodes well for St. Lawrence County and all of the other counties, several of which I have heard have put together similar resolutions, decrying the mandates of this CCIA. I urge everyone to support this and I will certainly be supporting this as well,” Lightfoot said.

Legislator John Burke echoed the sentiment from Lightfoot.

“I agree with everything Joe said. There needs to be a strong message sent down to the lawmakers in Albany. The Supreme Court said they overstepped the first time and even overstepped the second time,” Burke said.

Despite his support of the measure, Burke questioned whether there would be any potential liability to the county and taxpayers with Button acting of counsel.

According to Button, because he is not forming an attorney/client relationship in the matter and is not representing the plaintiffs in the case, there is no liability to the county or taxpayers.

“If I formed an attorney/client relationship, then we would be prohibited from using taxpayer funds to act as a direct litigant in the case,” Button said.

In his role in the case, Button said a considerable chunk of the time he will spend on the case will be his personal time outside of his role as county attorney.

According to Button, a whole host of legal options are available to the county to pursue a direct course of action against the state and CCIA, ranging from acting of counsel to piggybacking another case as the county did in NYSRPA v. Bruen last year.

“In the case of NYSRPA v. New York City, I acted of counsel. In that role, I am providing consultation and advise the attorneys that are representing the plaintiffs,” Button said.

Legislator Margaret Haggard wondered if the role would lead to a conflict of interest.

“To me, that sounds like you’re representing those people and I would think that would be a conflict of some sort,” she said.

“When you are acting of counsel, you are literally a, for a lack of a better term, a legal expert on the legal interpretation component and provide them guidance as to how to move through the dispute,” Button said.

In the case of Antonyuk v. Bruen, Button said he is acting in an advisory role due to his familiarity in NYSRPA v. Bruen, NYSRPA v. NYC and similar cases.

Button said in this role he offers assistance to the two law firms involved to ensure all filings and arguments are consistent with New York State law.

Legislator Jim Reagen also called into question the laws, specifically citing a call he received from a Vietnam veteran who informed him a 21-gun salute was not allowed when attempting to honor a recently deceased veteran.

“It’s just shocking to me and it is a prime example of how this law cannot stand,” Reagen said.

“I think our board should and must do everything we can to get this law repealed and to send a message, loud and clear across NYS, that this kind of overreach is unacceptable,” he continued.

Language in the CCIA has caused many spaces to be added to the “sensitive spaces” list due to its ambiguity, according to Button.

“The main thrust of the CCIA included new designations of sensitive spaces, some of which are very broad,” Button told the committee.

“We have seen many restrictions related to reenactments, which take place on public lands and are listed as quasi museums. They too are listed as sensitive spaces,” Button continued.

Many aspects of the laws have caused consternation across the state, with reenactments being canceled or scaled back due to the venues being used. The West Potsdam gun show was also canceled for the second time this year after organizers were unable to obtain clear direction from state representatives as to the legality of hosting the show at the fireman’s hall.

According to Button, the proper cause requirement has also been replaced with a “good moral character” requirement when applying for a concealed carry license.

“This is the exact type of amorphous language that could be very easily manipulated discretionarily by the licensing officer,” Button said.

Button also said the nature in which the new laws were passed has generated a number of questions.

“That fact that New York State passed laws that specifically flouted the direct language of the United States Supreme Court decision is, from a legal standpoint, incredibly suspect,” Button said.

Legislators Perkins and Denesha were both critical of the new laws as well, with Perkins saying “we need to protect our constitutional rights at whatever cost it may be, time, a little money, whatever it is.”

“This is just another laughable law that is not going to change the behavior or actions of criminals. The only people these laws are going to impact are law-abiding citizens. They are going to make it more difficult for them. Criminals don’t abide by the laws that are already enacted, why would anyone think any additional laws would make them act any differently,” Denesha said as well.

Acres also voiced his displeasure with the new laws, calling them a “blatant attempt to take away Second Amendment rights.”

“Really what it is, is a blatant attempt by the leadership here in NYS to take away your Second Amendment rights, that’s just what it is. To restrict them. And actually, the ones who are most affected by it are the minorities that live in these environments where their lives are in danger,” Acres said.

Acres noted two landmark Supreme Court cases, District of Columbia v. Heller and Chicago v. McDonald, both of which had black plaintiffs arguing the Second Amendment allowed them to carry firearms for personal protection.

In both cases the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, expanding Second Amendment rights.

“We’re getting caught up in these details, what’s a park, what’s the area, what's protected and all this. This is all it is, is, we want to take away your second amendment rights, we really want to take away all of your guns. And that’s all it is, it’s plain and simple,” Acres said.

Legislators ultimately approved the resolution, with Haggard being the lone no vote.