682 F.Supp.3d 213
D. Conn.2023Background:
- Plaintiff David Nastri, a licensed pistol holder and former National Guard member, sued DEEP Commissioner Katie Dykes under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 challenging Conn. Agencies Regs. § 23-4-1(c), which bars carrying firearms in Connecticut state parks and forests except as authorized (e.g., for hunting).
- Nastri alleges he regularly uses state parks and trails for hiking and would carry a handgun for self-defense but stopped after learning of the regulation; he has never been cited or threatened under the rule.
- DEEP’s regulation carries minor administrative penalties (fine, short eviction, or temporary park ban) and has been on the books for decades; evidence showed little to no enforcement and limited EnCon staffing.
- Procedurally, Nastri sought a preliminary injunction and moved for permanent relief; DEEP moved to dismiss for lack of Article III standing. The court held an evidentiary hearing and considered deposition and agency evidence.
- The court concluded Nastri lacked standing because, although he demonstrated intent to visit parks and a desire to carry, he failed to show a credible, imminent threat of prosecution; the case was dismissed without prejudice and the preliminary injunction denied for lack of jurisdiction.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Article III standing for pre-enforcement Second Amendment challenge | Nastri has been deterred from carrying in parks, intends to continue using parks, and desires to carry for self-defense — that suffices for pre-enforcement standing | Nastri disavows present intent to violate the rule and offers no specific plan or imminent threat, so he lacks standing | Court: No standing; dismissal granted because credible threat of prosecution not shown |
| Whether Nastri intended to engage in proscribed conduct | Past practice and ongoing desire to carry in parks (and steps taken to inquire of DEEP) show intent to engage in conduct but-for the regulation | Plaintiff’s testimony that he will continue to obey the rule shows no present intent to violate it | Court: Plaintiff’s past conduct and stated desire suffice to show intent to engage in the conduct absent the regulation |
| Whether there is a credible threat of prosecution | Exchange with DEEP and the regulation’s penalties create a risk of enforcement | Lack of targeted threats, decades-old regulation, no known enforcement examples, EnCon staffing limits, and no prior citations make enforcement unlikely | Court: No credible, imminent threat of enforcement; speculation insufficient for standing |
| Preliminary injunction (merits) | Injunctive relief needed to allow carrying pending final adjudication | Defense argues lack of likelihood of success and historical analogues under Bruen; also challenges standing | Court: Did not reach merits; denied preliminary injunction for want of subject-matter jurisdiction due to lack of standing |
Key Cases Cited
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (individual right to possess firearms for self-defense recognized)
- New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022) (framework requiring historical tradition analysis for firearms restrictions)
- Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing requires concrete, particularized, imminent injury)
- Clapper v. Amnesty Int'l USA, 568 U.S. 398 (2013) (speculative chain of possibilities insufficient for standing)
- Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 573 U.S. 149 (2014) (pre-enforcement challenges require imminent threat of enforcement)
- Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U.S. 452 (1974) (standing can exist for pre-enforcement facial challenges where prosecution fear is credible)
- Knife Rights, Inc. v. Vance, 802 F.3d 377 (2d Cir. 2015) (standing in pre-enforcement context where plaintiffs previously carried weapons but were deterred)
- Makarova v. United States, 547 F.3d 167 (2d Cir. 2008) (plaintiff has burden to prove subject-matter jurisdiction, including standing)