Second Circuit shoots down gun dealers’ challenge to New York firearms law

MANHATTAN (CN) — A Second Circuit panel on Friday upheld a federal court’s ruling that denied injunctive relief to eight gun and ammo dealers, a firearms pawnbroker and a business organization challenging New York's gun ownership laws. 

In arguments that took place in March, the plaintiffs claimed the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York erroneously rejected their claims that the state's gun laws violated their Second Amendment rights. 

Seeking injunctive relief, the plaintiffs sued four state leaders: Governor Kathleen Hochul, New York State Police Acting Superintendent Dominick Chiumento, New York Attorney General Letitia James and Commissioner of the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services Rossana Rosado.

Specifically, the plaintiffs took issue with New York’s licensing scheme for semi automatic rifles, its background check requirement for ammunition purchases and its firearms training requirement for concealed-carry licenses. In addition to concerns of constitutionality, they claimed the provisions run afoul of federal regulations. 

But the lower court was right in its ruling, the Second Circuit panel ruled on Friday.

“We disagree,” the three-justice panel wrote in the unsigned decision, adding that the plaintiffs “failed to present any evidence that the challenged provisions of New York law will threaten their customers’ right to acquire firearms."

On the panel were U.S. Circuit Judge Dennis Jacobs, a George H. W. Bush appointee; U.S. Circuit Judge Gerald Lynch, a Barack Obama appointee; and U.S. Circuit Judge Eunice Lee, a Joe Biden appointee. The trio of judges claimed that the plaintiffs ultimately failed to prove any meaningful conflict between New York and federal law.

Citing Congress’ own standard for conflicting state and federal law, the judges wrote that the plaintiffs must demonstrate that the two laws “cannot be reconciled or consistently stand together.”

“They fail to satisfy that burden,” the panel ruled.

Additionally, the panel upheld the district court’s findings that the plaintiffs lacked any standing to sue for the state’s background-check requirements at all. Ammunition distributor Craig Serafini was the only plaintiff to complain about this in an individual capacity, citing his unwillingness to disclose his personal information to the government. 

“But Serafini is a seller of ammunition, and the background-check requirement applies only to ‘any other person who is not a dealer in firearms… or a seller of ammunition,’” the panel wrote, finding that Serafini thus “does not have standing” to challenge the law. 

Similarly, the judges ruled that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue for the state’s licensing requirement for semiautomatic rifles. 

“I desire to purchase additional semi-automatic rifles for personal self-defense and sporting purposes,” plaintiff Christopher Martello stated in his sworn declaration.

But Martello wasn’t even objecting to the fact that he needed to get a license — he was complaining that his county of residence wasn’t providing applications for that license at all. That’s not the fault of the state defendants, ruled the judges.

“[Martello] fails to show how the non-defendant county’s failure to provide license applications is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the named defendants,” the panel wrote. 

However, as the district court saw “no basis” for the plaintiffs’ theory that state law unfairly burdened gun purchasers, the Second Circuit panel deviated slightly. 

“We conclude that there is a sufficient basis for that theory, but we hold that Appellants are not entitled to preliminary injunctive relief,” the panel wrote. 

For that, the plaintiffs’ attorney Paloma Capanna thanked the court, despite her clients not being granted their injunctive relief in Friday’s decision.

“The ruling paves the way for the plaintiffs to move forward with the presentation of proof of their novel claim that 2022 laws jammed through by Governor Hochul and the co-defendants are unconstitutional,” Capanna said in a statement to Courthouse News. “While these thirteen months of litigation in District and Circuit Court have not resulted in a preliminary injunction against the laws, we are reviewing and discussing the opportunity to submit an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.”

Still, it’s a win for the state’s gun laws, and the second of the day in appellate court. Also on Friday, the Second Circuit ruled on another firearm policy challenge in New York, allowing a majority of the provisions of the state’s Concealed Carry Improvement Act to remain in effect. 

Also on Friday, the Second Circuit ruled on another firearm policy challenge in New York, allowing a majority of the provisions of the state’s Concealed Carry Improvement Act to remain in effect. 

New York Attorney General Letitia James’ office didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment on the Second Circuit ruling on the semi automatic rifle licensing scheme, background-check requirement for ammunition purchases and firearms-training requirement for concealed-carry licenses. 

Follow @Uebey

Subscribe to Closing Arguments

Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.

Email *

Submit