New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Cuomo
804 F.3d 242
| 2d Cir. | 2015Background
- New York (SAFE Act, Jan 2013) and Connecticut (Apr/June 2013 statutes) replaced prior two‑feature "assault weapon" tests with one‑feature tests and banned magazines over ten rounds; New York additionally imposed a seven‑round load‑limit for carried/possessed magazines outside ranges.
- Both statutes grandfathered pre‑existing owners who register and criminalized possession, manufacture, transport, or sale of listed assault weapons and large‑capacity magazines.
- Plaintiffs (gun owners, businesses, advocacy groups) sued in the W.D.N.Y. and D. Conn., arguing the bans violate the Second Amendment and that various statutory terms are unconstitutionally vague; districts granted summary judgment to defendants in large part but struck the NY seven‑round load limit and found some NY provisions vague.
- The Second Circuit adopted a two‑step framework: (1) determine whether the regulated arms fall within Second Amendment protection (common use and typical lawful possession), and (2) apply the appropriate level of scrutiny if they do.
- Court assumed, for purposes of analysis, that the banned semiautomatic weapons and large‑capacity magazines are within the Amendment’s scope, held the bans survive intermediate scrutiny as substantially related to public‑safety interests, but invalidated New York’s seven‑round load limit and Connecticut’s ban of a non‑semiautomatic Remington 7615.
- The court also rejected facial vagueness challenges to most contested terms (e.g., "can be readily restored or converted," "copies or duplicates," tubular‑magazine capacity) and reversed district rulings that struck NY provisions for vagueness ("version" and the misspelled "muzzle break").
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether bans on listed semiautomatic "assault weapons" violate the Second Amendment | Statutes prohibit commonly owned arms used for lawful self‑defense; so they infringe core Second Amendment rights | Banned weapons are unusually dangerous; states have public‑safety interest in prohibiting them | Court assumed weapons fall within protection but held bans survive intermediate scrutiny; upheld bans |
| Whether bans on large‑capacity magazines violate the Second Amendment | Magazines are commonly owned and useful for self‑defense; ban unduly burdens right | Magazines increase lethality and are disproportionately used in mass shootings; ban furthers crime reduction | Court assumed protection but held magazine bans survive intermediate scrutiny; upheld bans |
| Validity of NY seven‑round load limit (separate from capacity ban) | Load limit is a reasonable safety measure consistent with legislative aims | Load limit reduces rounds available during an attack and complements capacity restriction | Court struck NY load limit as not substantially related to safety under intermediate scrutiny; invalidated provision |
| Vagueness of statutory terms (e.g., "readily restored or converted," "copies or duplicates," "version," "muzzle break") | Phrases are imprecise and invite arbitrary enforcement | Terms have established usage, contextual clarifiers (feature list, model list, state website), and historical precedent | Court rejected facial vagueness challenges for most terms; reversed district rulings that invalidated "version" and the misspelling "muzzle break"; sustained clarity of other contested phrases |
Key Cases Cited
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (individual right to possess arms; weapons "in common use" for lawful purposes)
- McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (Second Amendment incorporated against the states)
- Kachalsky v. County of Westchester, 701 F.3d 81 (2d Cir.) (two‑step framework; intermediate scrutiny for substantial burdens)
- United States v. Decastro, 682 F.3d 160 (2d Cir.) (analysis of when heightened scrutiny applies to Second Amendment challenges)
- Heller v. District of Columbia (Heller II), 670 F.3d 1244 (D.C. Cir.) (found AR‑15 and >10‑round mags in common use; applied means‑end review)
- United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (facial‑challenge standard for pre‑enforcement attacks)
- Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 (void‑for‑vagueness doctrine requires definite warning and guards against arbitrary enforcement)
- Village of Hoffman Estates v. The Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 U.S. 489 (vagueness test in civil/regulatory contexts)