The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York has upheld the conviction of Damien Carrington for criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree. The ruling, issued on October 1, 2026, confirms the lower court's decision and addresses Carrington's challenges to New York's firearm licensing laws. This case is significant as it touches on Second Amendment rights and the constitutionality of state regulations regarding gun ownership.
The court's decision affects Carrington, who was sentenced to a one-year conditional discharge. It also has broader implications for individuals challenging New York's firearm laws, particularly those concerning the requirement of “good moral character” for obtaining a gun license.
In this case, the parties involved are the People of the State of New York, represented by District Attorney Darcel D. Clark and counsel Emily Aldridge, and Damien Carrington, represented by Jenay Nurse Guilford and Leanna J. Duncan from the Center for Appellate Litigation. The dispute arose after Carrington pleaded guilty to criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree on November 13, 2023. Following his plea, he was sentenced to a one-year conditional discharge.
The case reached the Appellate Division after Carrington sought to challenge his conviction and the constitutionality of New York's firearm licensing scheme. He argued that the state's regulations were overly restrictive and violated his Second Amendment rights. The court's ruling addressed these claims and examined the legal framework surrounding firearm possession in New York.
The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the lower court's judgment, stating, “Defendant's waiver of the right to appeal does not foreclose from review his Second Amendment claim.” The judges on the panel included Moulton, J.P., Kennedy, Friedman, Michael, and Hagler. The court also noted that Carrington had standing to raise a facial challenge to the constitutionality of New York's firearm licensing scheme, despite not having applied for a firearm license.
However, the court rejected Carrington's specific challenge to New York's “good moral character” provision, which is part of the state's firearm licensing requirements. The ruling indicated that Carrington failed to demonstrate that the indictment against him was unconstitutional under the precedent set by the U.S. Supreme Court in New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen. The court referenced previous rulings that have upheld the constitutionality of New York's licensing scheme, stating, “New York's 'good moral character' provision does not unconstitutionally confer 'open-ended discretion to licensing officials' to grant or deny a firearm license.”
This ruling has important implications for gun rights advocates and those concerned about firearm regulations in New York. It reinforces the state's ability to impose certain requirements on individuals seeking to obtain a firearm license, including the assessment of an applicant's moral character. The court's decision aligns with previous rulings that have upheld similar provisions as necessary for public safety.
Looking ahead, the ruling could influence future challenges to New York's firearm laws. While Carrington's case has been resolved, other individuals may still seek to contest the state's licensing requirements. The court's affirmation of the lower court's decision may set a precedent for how similar cases are handled in the future.
Details were not available in the court filing regarding whether Carrington plans to appeal the ruling further. However, the court's decision does not preclude other challenges to New York's firearm regulations, and it remains to be seen how this ruling will impact ongoing discussions about gun rights and public safety in the state.