460 F.Supp.3d 302
W.D.N.Y.2020Background
- Pro se plaintiff Montgomery Blair Sibley moved to New York with two handguns and applied for a Steuben County concealed-carry pistol license; local investigation produced no criminal or mental-health history.
- A sheriff’s deputy advised Sibley that unlicensed in-home handgun possession was illegal; Sibley removed the firearms from New York pending adjudication.
- Licensing officer (Judge Chauncey J. Watches) denied Sibley’s concealed-carry application, citing lack of “good moral character” (disbarments and history of vexatious litigation); Sibley requested a hearing and documents, some requests were denied; hearing occurred January 10, 2020.
- Sibley filed this § 1983 suit challenging (1) the requirement to license in‑home handguns, (2) injunction against enforcement, (3) vagueness/overbreadth of §§ 400.00(1)(b) and (n) (good moral character/good cause), (4) licensing procedures/due process, and (5) adequacy of Article 78 review; he also challenged NY’s ban on cane swords.
- The district court consolidated overlapping motions, granted defendants’ motions to dismiss in large part, denied Sibley’s partial summary judgment, dismissed most claims with prejudice, but declined to dismiss the cane-sword claims at pleadings and allowed limited amendment as to certain claims/defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does NY Penal Law § 265.01(1) (licensure requirement) violate the Second Amendment for in‑home handgun possession? | Sibley: Heller/McDonald protect in‑home handgun possession and New York may not effectively ban in‑home possession by imposing licensing as a de facto prohibition. | Defendants: Heller/McDonald do not invalidate licensing requirements; states may impose licensing and substantive qualifications on possession. | Court: No Second Amendment violation; licensing is permissible. Claim dismissed with prejudice. |
| What level of scrutiny applies to NY’s licensing regime; does § 265.01(1) survive (strict vs. intermediate)? | Sibley: If any burden on core right, strict scrutiny should apply and statute fails. | Defendants: Intermediate scrutiny is appropriate and the licensing regime is substantially related to public safety. | Court: Applies intermediate scrutiny (consistent with Second Circuit practice) and finds § 265.01(1) satisfies it. |
| Are §§ 400.00(1)(b) and (n) (good moral character/good cause) void for vagueness, overbroad, or violative of First/Equal Protection/Privileges & Immunities? | Sibley: Provisions are vague/allow arbitrary or viewpoint-based denials (he claims denial was based on his litigative viewpoints). | Defendants: Standards are cabined by public-safety context; facial vagueness disfavored outside First Amendment; Article 78 and statutory context give meaning. | Court: Facial vagueness/overbreadth claims dismissed; as‑applied vagueness dismissed without prejudice for failure to plead facts (pleader filed before decision). Equal Protection and Privileges & Immunities claims dismissed without prejudice (boilerplate). |
| Did Watches’ licensing process (ex parte evidence, denial timing, failure to articulate) violate procedural due process and is Article 78 inadequate? | Sibley: Hearing and process defective; he lacked meaningful process and remedy. | Defendants: No protected property interest in NY permit; Article 78 provides adequate post‑deprivation process. | Court: Article 78 is an adequate remedy; procedural due process claims dismissed with prejudice. |
| Does the Second Amendment protect possession of cane swords (such that § 265.01(1) is unconstitutional as to them)? | Sibley: Cane swords are protected historical "bearable arms" and commonly possessed. | Defendants: Cane swords are not in common use today; plaintiffs haven’t pled typical possession evidence. | Court: Cannot resolve fact issue on pleadings — motions to dismiss denied as to cane‑sword claims; Sibley’s summary‑judgment motion also denied for lack of evidentiary support. |
| Are certain defendants properly sued or subject to dismissal (Watches, Allard, Baker, Cuomo, Corlett)? | Sibley sued licensing officer, sheriff, district attorney, governor, and state police superintendent in official capacities. | Defendants: Watches lacked connection to in‑home possession; Sheriff Allard argued municipal‑liability pleading insufficient; DA Baker argued prosecutorial role means he is proper state official. | Court: Watches — first and second claims dismissed as to him; Allard — all claims dismissed with prejudice (insufficient municipal‑policy allegations); Baker — not dismissed (DA is proper defendant for prospective/statute challenge); Cuomo/Corlett: some claims dismissed as described; Sibley allowed to amend. |
Key Cases Cited
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms for self‑defense in the home but the right is not unlimited)
- McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) (Second Amendment applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment)
- Kachalsky v. County of Westchester, 701 F.3d 81 (2d Cir. 2012) (describing New York licensing scheme, distinguishing home vs. public carry, and upholding licensing officer discretion)
- New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Cuomo, 804 F.3d 242 (2d Cir. 2015) (intermediate‑scrutiny framework and discussion of weapons in common use)
- Libertarian Party v. Cuomo, 300 F. Supp. 3d 424 (W.D.N.Y. 2018) (prior ruling by this court rejecting a facial Second Amendment challenge to NY licensing)
- Jimenez (United States v. Jimenez), 895 F.3d 228 (2d Cir. 2018) (applying intermediate scrutiny to a firearms possession ban even for in‑home possession)
- Berron v. Ill. Concealed Carry Licensing Review Bd., 825 F.3d 843 (7th Cir. 2016) (holding licensing may be required and Heller does not forbid licensure)
- Richmond Boro Gun Club v. City of N.Y., 97 F.3d 681 (2d Cir. 1996) (legislative enactment provides procedural due process by virtue of the legislative process)