Court: District Court, N.D. New York; December 16, 2018; Federal District Court
Plaintiffs New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, Inc. (NYSRPA), along with individuals Robert Nash and Brandon Koch, have initiated a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants George P. Beach II and Richard J. McNally, Jr. The plaintiffs claim that the defendants violated Nash and Koch's Second Amendment rights by denying their applications for licenses to carry firearms outside the home for self-defense. They seek declaratory and injunctive relief as well as reimbursement for costs and attorneys' fees.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the claims based on Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing that the case is governed by the Second Circuit's decision in Kachalsky v. County of Westchester, which the plaintiffs acknowledge is binding. An amicus curiae brief from Everytown for Gun Safety supports the defendants' position. The court granted the defendants' motion.
New York law requires a license for firearm possession, and individuals may apply for a handgun carry license for self-defense, contingent on a licensing officer's approval. The officer must verify compliance with statutory requirements, particularly demonstrating "proper cause" as outlined in New York Penal Law § 400.00. Licenses may be issued with restrictions, such as limited to "hunting and target" activities, which do not permit public carry for self-defense. Applicants must show a specific need for self-protection that is distinct from the general public to meet the proper cause standard.
NYSRPA claims to have a member who wishes to carry a firearm for self-defense but cannot meet the "proper cause" requirement. Both Nash and Koch are members of NYSRPA but do not qualify for exceptions under New York law to carry firearms in public. Despite satisfying many licensing requirements, they fail to demonstrate a special or unique danger to their lives that would warrant a Handgun Carry License. Their intent is solely to carry a handgun publicly for self-defense purposes.
In September 2014, Plaintiff Nash applied for a public handgun carry license, which was granted on March 12, 2015, but limited to "Hunting, Target only," disallowing self-defense carry outside the home. On September 5, 2016, Nash requested the removal of these restrictions, citing local robberies and completion of an advanced firearm safety course. This request was denied by Defendant McNally on November 1, 2016, due to Nash's failure to demonstrate 'proper cause' for self-defense that differentiated him from the general public. Nash currently refrains from carrying a firearm for self-defense but would do so if it were lawful.
Similarly, Plaintiff Koch received a public handgun carry license in 2008, also marked 'Hunting, Target,' which restricted him from self-defense carry. In November 2017, Koch sought to remove these restrictions, citing his extensive firearm training. McNally denied his request on January 16, 2018, for the same reasons as Nash's denial. Koch also refrains from carrying a firearm for self-defense but would do so if permitted.
The standard of review for a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) requires a complaint to present sufficient factual allegations to support a plausible claim for relief, with the court accepting all allegations as true and drawing reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. The review is confined to the facts within the complaint, attached exhibits, and referenced documents.
Defendants contend that the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association (NYSRPA) lacks standing to represent the Individual Plaintiffs in this case. Federal jurisdiction requires only one named plaintiff to have standing for each claim, as established in Comer v. Cisneros and Town of Chester v. Laroe Estates, Inc. The court notes that while NYSRPA's lack of an alleged institutional injury may undermine its standing, it is undisputed that Individual Plaintiffs Nash and Koch possess standing to pursue the claims. Thus, the court finds no need to further explore the standing issue.
Defendants also seek to dismiss the claims based on the precedent set in Kachalsky v. County of Westchester, where the Second Circuit upheld New York's handgun licensing requirement that applicants demonstrate "proper cause" to carry a concealed handgun, asserting it does not infringe upon Second Amendment rights. The circumstances of Kachalsky closely mirror those in the current case, as the plaintiffs there were denied handgun licenses for failing to prove a distinct need for self-protection. The district court had ruled in favor of the state, affirming that the licensing statute does not burden Second Amendment rights and, even if it did, it withstands intermediate scrutiny. The plaintiffs in Kachalsky appealed, arguing that the proper cause requirement violates the Second Amendment as interpreted by the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller.
The Second Circuit upheld the district court's use of intermediate scrutiny, emphasizing New York's compelling governmental interests in public safety and crime prevention, which relate to the proper cause requirement under New York Penal Law § 400.00(2)(f). The plaintiffs' challenge closely mirrors the case of Kachalsky, and they recognize that they must adhere to the binding precedent established by the Second Circuit. Although the plaintiffs argue that Kachalsky was incorrectly decided, citing the D.C. Circuit's decision in Wrenn, which invalidated a similar law without applying tiers of scrutiny, they acknowledge that their desired outcome contradicts Kachalsky. The Second Circuit has confirmed the constitutionality of the New York law, leaving the plaintiffs' claims unsupported, as they have not provided additional factual allegations that would suggest a plausible legal claim. Consequently, the Amended Complaint should be dismissed, as it is the responsibility of the Second Circuit or the Supreme Court to address any conflicts with their precedents, not this Court.
Defendants' motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 19) is granted, resulting in the dismissal of the Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 31) with prejudice. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. The Court had previously allowed the Plaintiffs to amend the original complaint on May 16, 2018 (Dkt. No. 30), and the Amended Complaint was adopted as the operative pleading without needing to refile the motion to dismiss or subsequent briefs. All facts from the Amended Complaint and its exhibits are assumed true for this motion. The definition of "firearm" under N.Y. Penal Law § 265.00(3) is provided, clarifying that certain firearms, including rifles and shotguns, are not subject to licensing requirements. The Plaintiffs argue that the Second Amendment applies to the Defendants through the Fourteenth Amendment's incorporation, citing relevant case law. The Court references prior rulings, including Kachalsky and subsequent Second Circuit decisions, which upheld regulations on handgun transport and applied intermediate scrutiny to assess the fit between such regulations and public safety interests. The Plaintiffs did not seek further amendments, and the Court concludes that their claims are legally unviable and cannot be remedied by additional allegations, thus confirming the dismissal with prejudice.
