300 F. Supp. 3d 424
W.D.N.Y.2018Background
- Plaintiffs challenged New York Penal Law §§ 265.00(3), 265.01–265.04, 265.20(a)(3), and § 400.00, arguing the State's firearms licensing scheme violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments and that § 400.00's terms ("good moral character," "proper cause," "good cause") are unconstitutionally vague.
- Plaintiffs include several individuals and the Libertarian Party of Erie County; many named plaintiffs either never applied for a NY license or hold licenses; Murtari was denied a license and Cuthbert was issued a limited license.
- Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim; the court considered standing, mootness, judicial and sovereign immunity, vagueness, and Second Amendment challenges.
- The court dismissed claims for plaintiffs who abandoned claims or lacked standing (including the Party and several named individuals) and held many claims moot where licenses were reinstated or where plaintiffs already had unrestricted licenses.
- Judges Kehoe and Boller were found to have acted in their judicial capacities; they are immune from money damages and injunctive relief in their individual capacities and entitled to sovereign immunity for damages in their official capacities.
- The court applied Second Circuit precedent and intermediate scrutiny to Murtari’s challenges, concluding NYS licensing laws are substantially related to public safety objectives and dismissing the remaining constitutional and Article 78 claims; the court denied exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the Article 78 claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing for plaintiffs who never applied for a NY license | Plaintiffs argued they oppose the licensing regime and need not apply or that application would be futile | Defendants: lack of application defeats standing unless futility shown with particularized facts | Dismissed for lack of standing where plaintiffs did not apply or allege futility (Decastro controlling) |
| Standing/mootness for plaintiffs with existing or reinstated licenses (Mayor, Mongielo) | Plaintiffs claim ongoing threat of revocation and practical burdens justify standing | Defendants: holding a license means no present injury; reinstatement renders claim moot | Claims dismissed: speculative future harm insufficient; reinstated licenses moot claims |
| Judicial and sovereign immunity for judges deciding license applications | Plaintiffs: license decisions are administrative, not judicial, so immunity shouldn't shield judges | Defendants: judges act within judicial capacity and enjoy absolute/Eleventh Amendment immunity | Judges Kehoe and Boller immune from damages and injunctive relief in individual capacities; damages barred in official capacities |
| Vagueness and Second Amendment challenges to § 400.00 (including "proper cause") | Plaintiffs: statutory terms are indefinable and licensing scheme unlawfully burdens core Second Amendment rights | Defendants: terms are applied in many constitutionally valid circumstances; licensing furthers public safety; Kachalsky/NYSRPA uphold similar standards | Court: facial vagueness claim fails (must show no set of valid applications); intermediate scrutiny applied and statute upheld as substantially related to public safety; "proper cause" upheld under binding precedent (Kachalsky) |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard for plausible claims)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading standard requires plausible factual allegations)
- United States v. Decastro, 682 F.3d 160 (standing requires applying for NY license unless futility shown)
- Kachalsky v. County of Westchester, 701 F.3d 81 (upholding NY "proper cause" licensing requirement)
- New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n, Inc. v. Cuomo, 804 F.3d 242 (Second Circuit framework for Second Amendment challenges)
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (individual right to possess firearms in the home; limits acknowledged)
- McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (incorporation of Second Amendment against the states)
- United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (facial challenge standard: challenger must show no set of valid applications)
- Clapper v. Amnesty Int'l USA, 568 U.S. 398 (speculative future injury insufficient for standing)
- Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9 (absolute judicial immunity for judicial acts)