When the First Department affirmed the conviction in People v Martin on September 30, 2025, it did more than uphold a jury’s verdict. It clarified how trial courts should handle modern Second Amendment arguments, New York’s permissive intent presumption, and the kind of proof that meets the State’s burden on a charge of second-degree criminal possession of a weapon. If you are facing a gun charge, this decision shows where judges draw the line and how your defense can meet the State on those points.
The Second Amendment Challenge and Why Standing Matters
You may have heard that federal courts have been rethinking gun laws. Defendants often argue that New York’s licensing rules and possession statutes cannot stand after the Supreme Court’s decision in Bruen. In Martin, the court took those arguments seriously but started with a gatekeeping question: can this defendant bring that challenge in the first place? That is the standing issue. Because the defense had not shown he even tried to obtain a New York license or that trying would have been pointless, the court treated broad Second Amendment attacks as out of reach for him. In other words, you cannot claim a law violates your rights in the abstract if your own conduct never put you in the protected category.
This is a practical lesson for you. If you plan to raise constitutional arguments, you should build a record that shows why those arguments apply to you. That might include application attempts, correspondence with a licensing authority, or facts that prove a genuine barrier—rather than a guess that trying would have been futile.
The Permissive Presumption Still Packs a Punch
One of the weapon counts in Martin turned on Penal Law § 265.03(1)(b), which requires proof that you possessed a loaded firearm with intent to use it unlawfully against another. Jurors do not see inside your mind, so New York law permits a narrow inference: under CPL § 265.15(4), a jury may infer unlawful intent from unlicensed possession of a loaded gun in the wrong place. The defense argued that this presumption does not survive Bruen. The court disagreed.
Here is the key point for you. The presumption remains “permissive,” not mandatory. Jurors may rely on it, but they are not required to do so. The prosecution still has to prove every element beyond a reasonable doubt, and you can rebut the inference with facts that point to a lawful purpose or a lack of intent. The court also noted that the presumption does not apply to a person who lawfully holds a New York license. That means if your defense includes a valid license or a narrow statutory exception, the presumption should not come into play at all.
How the Evidence Met the Burden
Affirming a conviction requires more than a legal presumption. The record in Martin supplied concrete proof of intent and possession. A doorman and a building maintenance worker described a struggle in the lobby. They saw a gun fall to the floor near a bench. They saw you reach toward that gun, put your hand on it, and had to stop you from using it before one of them pulled it away. Surveillance footage captured the reach under the bench where the gun had fallen. That mix of eyewitness accounts and video filled in the gaps.
If you are building a defense, this is where you focus. Eyewitnesses misremember angles and timing; cameras have blind spots and frame-rate limitations. You put the two together, test each piece against the other, and look for points that do not match. If the video does not actually show contact with the gun, highlight that. If the lighting, distance, or camera placement creates doubt, explain why a viewer could misread a reach for a dropped wallet, keys, or phone as a reach for a weapon. Intent cases are won and lost on details.
What the Decision Says about Speedy Trial and Trial Posture
The court also rejected a speedy-trial claim under CPL 30.30. That tells you two things. First, you cannot treat 30.30 like a simple calendar count; you must track which delays are chargeable to the People and which ones are excluded. Second, you should litigate 30.30 from day one. Serve discovery demands early, press for compliance, and object when adjournments creep in without a clear basis. If you do not build a clean record as the months pass, the appellate court will not rescue you later.
Where Your Defense Can Still Win after Martin
Do not read Martin as a blank check for the State. The opinion rests on the record in that case: engaged eyewitnesses, clear descriptions of a struggle, a gun on the floor, contact with the weapon, and supporting video. Your facts may be different. You can narrow the presumption with a licensing defense. You can undercut intent by showing the contact was brief, accidental, or interrupted before any threatening act. You can challenge the chain of custody or operability. You can point to inconsistencies in how witnesses describe who touched what and when. And you can still attack the stop, the arrest, or the search that led to recovery of the gun if officers lacked probable cause at the critical moment.
To understand how the statute actually works and what the State must prove, it helps to read a plain-English overview of second-degree weapon possession. Seeing the elements side by side with common defenses can help you and your lawyer decide where to apply pressure first.
Turning Legal Principles into a Plan
After Martin, your defense plan should be evidence-driven and specific. Preserve the footage, map the scene, and pin down sight lines. Lock witnesses into precise distances and time frames. Identify what the camera can and cannot show. If intent is the fight, present a lawful reason for your actions, or show how the State’s story depends on guesses rather than facts. If you plan to raise constitutional arguments about licensing or public carry, build your standing record now with documents rather than assumptions.
Judges and juries respond to clear, grounded storytelling. Your job is to supply the details that make your account more believable than the State’s theory. A focused, early strategy can turn a case that seems open and shut into a file full of doubts the prosecution has to explain away.
Call Tilem & Associates, P.C. Today to Schedule a Free Consultation
You do not have to figure out these choices alone. Call Tilem & Associates, P.C. at 877-377-8666 right now. Our team will study the video, test the eyewitness accounts, and challenge the use of any presumption that does not fit your facts. With the right plan, you can protect your rights, reduce your exposure, and move forward with confidence.