N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n, Inc. v. Cuomo
| Decision Date | 19 October 2015 |
| Docket Number | 14–319–cv.,Nos. 14–36–cv Lead,14–37–cv XAP,s. 14–36–cv Lead |
| Citation | 804 F.3d 242 |
| Parties | NEW YORK STATE RIFLE AND PISTOL ASSOCIATION, INC., Westchester County Firearms Owners Association, Inc., Sportsmen's Association For Firearms Education, Inc., New York State Amateur Trapshooting Association, Inc., Bedell Custom, Beikirch Ammunition Corporation, Blueline Tactical & Police Supply, LLC, Batavia Marine & Sporting Supply, William Nojay, Thomas Galvin, Roger Horvath, Plaintiffs–Appellants–Cross–Appellees, v. Andrew M. CUOMO, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of New York, Eric T. Schneiderman, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the State of New York, Joseph A. D'Amico, in his official capacity as Superintendent of the New York State Police, Defendants–Appellees–Cross–Appellants, Gerald J. Gill, in his official capacity as Chief of Police for the Town of Lancaster, New York, Lawrence Friedman, Defendants–Appellees, Frank A. Sedita, III, in his official capacity as District Attorney for Erie County, Defendant. The Connecticut Citizens' Defense League, The Coalition of Connecticut Sportsmen, June Shew, Rabbi Mitchell Rocklin, Stephanie Cypher, Peter Owens, Brian McClain, Andrew Mueller, Hiller Sports, LLC, Md Shooting Sports, LLC, Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. Dannel P. Malloy, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Connecticut, Kevin T. Kane, in his official capacity as Chief State's Attorney of the State of Connecticut, Dora B. Schriro, in her official capacity as Commissioner of the Connecticut Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection, David I. Cohen, in his official capacity as State's Attorney for the Stamford/Norwalk Judicial District, Geographical Areas Nos. 1 and 20, John C. Smriga, capacity as State's Attorney for the Waterbury Judicial District, Geographical Area No. 4, Kevin D. Lawlor, in his official capacity as State's Attorney for the Ansonia/Milford Judicial District, Geographical Areas Nos. 5 and 22, Michael Dearington, in his official capacity as State's Attorney for the New Haven Judicial District, Geographical Area Nos. 7 and 23, Peter A. McShane, in his official capacity as State's Attorney for the Middlesex Judicial District, Geographical Area No. 9, Michael L. Regan, in his official capacity as State's Attorney for the New London Judicial District, Geographical Area Nos. 10 and 21, Patricia M. Froehlich, Gail P. Hardy, in her official capacity as State's Attorney for the Hartford Judicial District, Geographical Areas Nos. 12, 13, and 14, Brian Preleski, in his official capacity as State's Attorney for the New Britain Judicial District, Geographical Area Nos. 15 and 17, David Shepack, in his official capacity as State's Attorney for the Litchfield Judicial District, Geographical Area No. 18, Matthew C. Gedansky, in his official capacity as State's Attorney for the Tolland Judicial District, Geographical Area No. 19, Stephen J. Sedensky III, in his official capacity as State's Attorney for the Danbury Judicial District, Geographical Area No. 3, Defendants–Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
David Thompson, Charles J. Cooper, Peter A. Patterson, Cooper & Kirk, PLLC, Washington DC, and Brian T. Stapleton, Matthew S. Lerner, Goldberg Segalla LLP, White Plains, N.Y., Stephen P. Halbrook, Fairfax, VA, for Plaintiffs–Appellants.
Barbara D. Underwood, Solicitor General of the State of New York (Anisha S. Dasgupta, Claude S. Platton, Office of the Solicitor General, on the brief), for Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General for the State of New York, New York, N.Y., for Defendants–Appellees–Cross–Appellants Andrew M. Cuomo, et al.
Maura B. Murphy Osborne, Assistant Attorney General of the State of Connecticut (Perry Zinn Rowthorn, Michael K. Skold, Gregory T. D'Auria, Office of the Attorney General, on the brief), for George Jepsen, Attorney General of the State of Connecticut, Hartford, CT, for Defendants–Appellees Dannel P. Malloy, et al.
Before: CABRANES, LOHIER, and DRONEY, Circuit Judges.
Before the Court are two appeals challenging gun-control legislation enacted by the New York and Connecticut legislatures in the wake of the 2012 mass murders at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. The New York and Connecticut laws at issue prohibit the possession of certain semiautomatic “assault weapons” and large-capacity magazines. Following the entry of summary judgment in favor of defendants on the central claims in both the Western District of New York (William M. Skretny, Chief Judge ) and the District of Connecticut (Alfred V. Covello, Judge ), plaintiffs in both suits now press two arguments on appeal. First, they challenge the constitutionality of the statutes under the Second Amendment; and second, they challenge certain provisions of the statutes as unconstitutionally vague. Defendants in the New York action also cross-appeal the District Court's invalidation of New York's separate seven-round load limit and voiding of two statutory provisions as facially unconstitutionally vague.
We hold that the core provisions of the New York and Connecticut laws prohibiting possession of semiautomatic assault weapons and large-capacity magazines do not violate the Second Amendment, and that the challenged individual provisions are not void for vagueness. The particular provision of New York's law regulating load limits, however, does not survive the requisite scrutiny. One further specific provision—Connecticut's prohibition on the non-semiautomatic Remington 7615—unconstitutionally infringes upon the Second Amendment right. Accordingly, we AFFIRM in part the judgment of the District Court for the District of Connecticut insofar as it upheld the prohibition of semiautomatic assault weapons and large-capacity magazines, and REVERSE in part its holding with respect to the Remington. With respect to the judgment of the District Court for the Western District of New York, we REVERSE in part certain vagueness holdings, and we otherwise AFFIRM that judgment insofar as it upheld the prohibition of semiautomatic assault weapons and large-capacity magazines and invalidated the load limit.
New York and Connecticut have long restricted possession of certain automatic and semiautomatic firearms that came to be known as “assault weapons.” In 1993, Connecticut's General Assembly adopted the state's first assault-weapon ban, which criminalized the possession of firearms “capable of fully automatic, semiautomatic or burst fire at the option of the user,” including 67 specifically enumerated semiautomatic firearms.1
The following year, after five years of hearings on the harms thought to be caused by certain firearms, the U.S. Congress enacted legislation restricting the manufacture, transfer, and possession of certain “semiautomatic assault weapons.”2 The 1994 federal statute defined “semiautomatic assault weapons” in two ways. First, it catalogued 18 specifically prohibited firearms, including, as relevant here, the Colt AR–15. Second, it introduced a “two-feature test,” which prohibited any semiautomatic firearm that contained at least two listed military-style features, including a telescoping stock, a conspicuously protruding pistol grip, a bayonet mount, a flash suppressor, and a grenade launcher. The federal statute also prohibited magazines with a capacity of more than ten rounds of ammunition, or which could be “readily restored or converted to accept” more than 10 rounds.3 The federal assault-weapons ban expired in 2004, pursuant to its sunset provision.4
Following the passage of the federal assault-weapons ban, both New York, in 2000, and Connecticut, in 2001, enacted legislation that closely mirrored the federal statute, including the two-feature test for prohibited semiautomatic firearms.5 Unlike the federal statute, however, these state laws contained no sunset provisions and thus remained in force until amended by the statutes at issue here.
On December 14, 2012, a gunman shot his way into Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut and murdered twenty first-graders and six adults using a semiautomatic AR–15–type rifle with ten large-capacity magazines. This appalling attack, in addition to other recent mass shootings, provided the immediate impetus for the legislation at issue in this appeal.6
New York enacted the Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement Act (SAFE Act) on January 15, 2013.7 The SAFE Act expands the definition of prohibited “assault weapons” by replacing the prior two-feature test with a stricter one-feature test. As the name suggests, the new test defines a semiautomatic firearm as a prohibited “assault weapon” if it contains any one of an enumerated list of military-style features, including a telescoping stock, a conspicuously protruding pistol grip, a thumbhole stock, a bayonet mount, a flash suppressor, a barrel shroud, and a grenade launcher.8 This statutory definition encompasses, and thereby bans, the semiautomatic weapon used by the mass-shooter at Sandy Hook. New York law makes the possession, manufacture, transport, or disposal of an “assault weapon” a felony.9 Pursuant to the SAFE Act's grandfather clause, however, pre-existing lawful owners of banned assault weapons may continue to possess them if they register those weapons with the New York State Police.10
The SAFE Act also bans magazines that can hold more than ten rounds of ammunition or that can be readily restored or converted to accept more than ten rounds.11 Although New York had restricted possession of such magazines since 2000, the SAFE Act eliminated a grandfather clause for magazines manufactured before September 1994.
The SAFE Act's large-capacity-magazine ban contains an additional, unique prohibition on possession of a magazine loaded with more than seven rounds of ammunition.12 (For the purpose of this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Soto v. Bushmaster Firearms Int'l, LLC, SC 19832
...capacity magazines, such as AR-15), cert. denied, U.S. , 138 S. Ct. 469, 199 L. Ed. 2d 374 (2017); New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Cuomo, 804 F.3d 242, 257 (2d Cir. 2015) (assuming for sake of argument that second amendment does apply to semiautomatic assault weapons such as AR......
-
Soto v. Bushmaster Firearms Int'l, LLC, SC 19832, (SC 19833)
...magazines, such as AR-15), cert. denied, ––– U.S. ––––, 138 S.Ct. 469, 199 L.Ed.2d 374 (2017) ; New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Cuomo , 804 F.3d 242, 257 (2d Cir. 2015) (assuming for sake of argument that second amendment does apply to semiautomatic assault weapons such as AR-1......
-
State v. Misch
...self-defense, fall outside ambit of Second Amendment (citing Heller, 554 U.S. at 627, 128 S.Ct. 2783 )); N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Cuomo, 804 F.3d 242, 253 (2d Cir. 2015) ("[T]he Second Amendment protects only those weapons in common use by citizens for lawful purposes like self-de......
-
Maryland Shall Issue, Inc. v. Hogan
...But less severe burdens on the right ... may be more easily justified."); see also New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n, Inc. v. Cuomo , 804 F.3d 242, 260 (2d Cir. 2015) (" NYSRPA ") ("Heightened scrutiny need not ... be akin to strict scrutiny when a law burdens the Second Amendment—particu......
-
Inconvenient Federalism: The Pandemic, Abortion Rights, and the Commerce Clause
...v. Hogan, 849 F.3d 114, 121 (4th Cir. 2017) (upholding a Maryland ban on assault weapons); N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Cuomo, 804 F.3d 242, 247 (2d Cir. 2015) (upholding Connecticut and New York assault weapons bans). 222. See Ben Popken, America’s Gun Business, By the Numbers,NBCNE......
-
Second Amendment Federalism.
...2011) (adopting the framework); Gould v. Morgan, 907 F.3d 659,668-69 (1st Cir. 2018) (same); N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Cuomo, 804 F.3d 242, 252-53 (2d Cir. 2015) (same); United States v. Marzzarella, 614 F.3d 85, 89 (3d Cir. 2010) (same); United States v. Chester, 628 F.3d 673,......
-
Mass Shootings, Legislative Responses, and Public Policy: an Endless Cycle of Inaction
...Healey, 922 F.3d 26, 30 (1st Cir. 2019); Kolbe v. Hogan, 849 F.3d 114, 144, 149 (4th Cir. 2017); N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Cuomo, 804 F.3d 242, 269 (2d Cir. 2015); Friedman v. City of Highland Park, 784 F.3d 406, 407-08 (7th Cir. 2015).57. Daniel Abrams, Ending the Other Arms Race:......