Sidebar for lawyers and advanced readers of Firearms Law and Policy:
Please feel free to dig into the details, and post your thoughts. Including a section heading or a page number will help the rest of us follow along as you discuss what you see in the law and in the decision. |
TABLE OF CONTENTS
|
I. INTRODUCTION |
1 |
II. BACKGROUND |
4 |
A. The SAFE Act |
4 |
1. Assault Weapons |
4 |
2. Magazines and Ammunition |
7 |
B. Procedural History |
8 |
III. DISCUSSION |
9 |
A. Legal Standards |
9 |
B. Standing |
10 |
C. The Second Amendment & Heller |
11 |
D. Standard of Review |
15 |
1. Common Use & Substantial Burden |
19 |
2. Intermediate Scrutiny |
23 |
E. Application of Intermediate Scrutiny to the SAFE Act |
27 |
1. Assault Weapons |
27 |
2. Large-capacity Magazines |
33 |
3. Seven-round Limit |
34 |
F. Vagueness |
37 |
1. The “conspicuously protruding” pistol grip |
39 |
2. The threaded barrel |
41 |
3. Magazine-capacity restrictions |
41 |
4. The five-round shotgun limit |
42 |
5. “Can be readily restored or converted” |
42 |
6. The “and if” clause of Penal Law § 265.36 |
43 |
7. Muzzle “break” |
44 |
8. “Version” of an automatic weapon |
45 |
9. Manufactured weight |
46 |
10. Commercial transfer |
46 |
G. Dormant Commerce Clause |
46 |
IV. CONCLUSION |
53 |
V. ORDERS |
|
THE INTRODUCTION
Usually, the introduction will be a page or two, so I try to read the whole thing, to orient myself to the big picture, before trying to make sense of the decision.
[page 1 begins]
On January 15, 2013, New York’s Governor, Andrew M. Cuomo, signed into law the New York Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement Act of 2013. Commonly known by its acronym, the SAFE Act makes broad and varied changes to firearm regulation in New York State. The Act amends or supplements various aspects of New York law, including, among others, the criminal procedure law, the correction law, the family court law, the executive law, the general business law, the judiciary law, the mental hygiene law, and, of course, the penal law. According to its drafters, this network of new laws, which generally enhances regulation and increases penalties for the illegal possession of firearms, is designed to “protect New Yorkers by reducing the availability of assault weapons and deterring the criminal use of firearms while promoting a fair, consistent and efficient method of ensuring that sportsmen and other legal gun owners have full enjoyment of the guns to which they are entitled.” (Senate, Assembly, and Gov. Memos in Supp., Bill No. S2230-2013.)
Plaintiffs, comprising various associations of gun owners and advocates, companies in the business of selling firearms, and individual gun-owning citizens of New York, challenge several aspects of the law. Principally, Plaintiffs maintain that certain restrictions codified in the SAFE Act, like those concerning large-capacity magazines and those regulating assault weapons, violate their right “to keep and bear arms” under the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. They also assert that several aspects of the law are unconstitutionally vague and that certain provisions violate the Equal Protection and “dormant” Commerce Clauses of the United States Constitution.
Three motions are currently before this Court. Plaintiffs first filed a motion for a
[Page 2 begins]
preliminary injunction. That motion raised several — but not all — the challenges outlined above. In response to that motion, Defendants Andrew Cuomo, Eric Schneiderman, and Joseph D’Amico cross-moved to dismiss the case under Rules 12(b)(1), 12(b)(6), and 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Then, Plaintiffs responded with their own motion 1 for summary judgment. Because both sides have subsequently filed dispostive motions, this Court deems Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction moot.
In resolving the pending motions, this Court notes that whether regulating firearms is wise or warranted is not a judicial question; it is a political one. This Court’s function is thus limited to resolving whether New York’s elected representatives acted within the confines of the United States Constitution in passing the SAFE Act. Undertaking that task, and applying the governing legal standards, the majority of the challenged provisions withstand constitutional scrutiny.
As explained in more detail below, although so-called “assault weapons” and large capacity magazines, as defined in the Safe Act, may — in some fashion — be “in common use,” New York has presented considerable evidence that its regulation of these weapons is substantially related to the achievement of an important governmental interest. Accordingly, the Act does not violate the Second Amendment in this respect.
Further, because the SAFE Act’s requirement that ammunition sales be conducted “face-to-face” does not unduly burden interstate commerce, it does not violate the dormant Commerce Clause.
[Page 3 begins]
The Act, however, is not constitutionally flawless. For reasons articulated below, the seven-round limit is largely an arbitrary restriction that impermissibly infringes on the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment. This Court therefore strikes down that portion of the Act. Finally, this Court must strike three provisions of the SAFE Act as unconstitutionally vague because an ordinary person must speculate as to what those provisions of the Act command or forbid.
[my bold]
So that answers part of the basic story question, What? The case is about the New York SAFE Act's restrictions on assault weapons, large-capacity magazines, and ammunition. The "Court notes that whether regulating firearms is wise or warranted is not a judicial question; it is a political one." The Court's role is to evaluate whether the New York legislature violated the US Constitution when they passed some restrictions into law. The seven-round limit infringes on the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment because it is "largely an arbitrary restriction." Three portions of the assault weapons law are vague and therefore invalid because it would be to hard for an ordinary person to know where the line is between legal and illegal.
Now let’s skip to the conclusion to take a peek at the Why?
THE CONCLUSION
“Our Constitution is designed to maximize individual freedoms within a framework of ordered liberty.” Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 357, 103 S. Ct. 1855, 1858, 75 L. Ed. 2d 903 (1983). In Heller and McDonald, the Supreme Court found that the right to “keep and bear arms,” enshrined in the Second Amendment, was among those individual freedoms. But the Court also noted that the right was not unlimited. Drawing from post-Heller rulings that have begun to settle the vast terra incognita left by the Supreme Court, this Court finds that the challenged provisions of the SAFE Act — including the Act’s definition and regulation of assault weapons and its ban on large-capacity magazines — further the state’s important interest in public safety, and do not impermissibly infringe on Plaintiffs’ Second Amendment rights. But, the seven-round limit fails the relevant test because the purported link between the ban and the State’s interest is tenuous, strained, and unsupported in the record.
Further, three aspects of the law — the “and if” clause of N.Y. Penal Law § 265.36, the references to muzzle “breaks” in N.Y. Penal Law § 265.00(22)(a)(vi), and the regulation with respect to pistols that are “versions” of automatic weapons in N.Y. Penal Law § 265.00(22)(c)(viii) — must be stricken because they do not adequately inform an ordinary person as to what conduct is prohibited.
Finally, because the SAFE Act’s requirement that all ammunition sales be conducted in-person does not unduly burden interstate commerce, it does not violate the Commerce Clause.
[my bold]
Most parts of the law were upheld because "they further the state’s important interest in public safety, and do not impermissibly infringe on Plaintiffs’ Second Amendment rights." The state provided sufficient evidence to support only six of the nine parts of the assault weapons restrictions. For three of the nine parts the state didn't provide sufficient evidence to convince the judge they serve an important state interest. The restriction that gun owners can only load seven rounds (aka bullets) into a magazine is the only part of the law found to be unconstitutional. That part of the law fails the relevant test because the purported link between the seven round limit and the State’s interest is "tenuous, strained, and unsupported in the record."
At this point my brain is usually already full, so I'll stop and make a short list of terms I need to be clear about. In the next segment we'll open up some dictionaries and look up a few legal terms before we attempt to wade back in again at the beginning. If you feel lost, you're not alone. I always feel lost the first time I look at a new case. If you find something confusing, you can be sure others do too. If there are terms that you would like a future diary to address please do post them in the comments.
Summary
This article reviews the first federal court review of the constitutionality of New York state's new gun law. We have read the Introduction and Conclusion of Judge Skretney's ruling. This diary is part III of a tutorial series breaking down my approach to learning about gun law by reading judicial opinions. It was hard at first, and tedious, the same way that learning a foreign language is tedious at first. It does get easier with practice and has been well worth the effort. In the next segment we'll dig into some gun terminology.
I imagine some of you are scratching your head, "Gun technology? Really? Oh joy!" ;)
Thanks for reading!
|