A New Yorker is Fighting a One-Man Battle Against the City’s Restrictions on FFLs in the Big Apple

[Cavalier Knight]

NYPD License Division: "The Ninety Day Waiting Period simply regulates the frequency in which licensees may acquire firearms after their first purchase. Since the rule does not leave an ordinary, law-abiding citizen without the ability to possess a firearm for self-defense, it does not implicate the text of the Second Amendment or infringe on the core of the right defined in Heller, McDonald, and Bruen, thereby obviating the need to discover historical analogues."

O Defendants, Defendants, wherefore art thou 1791 Analogues?

As per Bruen, during the ratification of the 2nd Amendment in 1791 there were no regulations requiring law-abiding citizens to pay a fee to possess any type of premises and/or carry licenses. Nor was there a limit on the number of arms a law-abiding citizen could keep and bear for self-defense. Even if a licensing scheme is lawful under Bruen there is no grant of police power requiring possession of both a state Residence Premises License to keep arms and a separate but not equal state Carry License to bear arms.

Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV, Section 2

Defendants are requiring law-abiding citizens to possess a state Residence Premises License to keep arms and a separate but not equal state Carry License to bear arms. All first-time state CL applicants will only be able to possess a total of (2) handguns on a state CL. This de facto limits the acquisition of arms to a total of (2) handguns to keep inside the home and to bear outside of the home which as applied and facially strikes at the core of the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms inside the home and to carry publicly for self-defense.

Only issuing a state Firearms Dealers License to FFL 01s with a brick & mortar store and refusing to issue a state FDL to FFL 01s who intend to sell constitutionally protected goods and/or services intrastate at gun shows and interstate via mail-order and/or e-commerce, and prohibiting the transportation of inventory to offsite storage locations, and requiring law-abiding citizens to request government permission to receive (1) purchase authorization every (90) days and prohibiting Knight from making contracts with New York City as a PASSPort vendor with a commodity of 384 - Law Enforcement Equipment and Supplies, as applied and facially violates the Equal Protection Clause.

Under 38 - R.C.N.Y. § 4-03 and NYC Admin Code § 10-302 (c)(1), Federal Firearms Licensees 01 (FFL 01) must possess a brick & mortar store as a prerequisite to apply for a state Firearms Dealer’s License (state FDL) in violation of NYS PL § 400.00 (1-a).

(a) “A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution. Since the privilege in question is guaranteed by the Federal Constitution and exists independently of state authority, the inquiry as to whether the State has given something for which it can ask a return is irrelevant.” “No state shall convert a liberty into a license, and charge a fee, therefore.” See, Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943)

Under NYC Admin Code § 10-302.1 (b) “no person shall acquire a firearm if such person has acquired a firearm within the previous (90) days” and only after requesting permission from the local government to receive a purchase authorization for each handgun.

(b) “Whereas if a state converts a right into a privilege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right (liberty) with impunity.” See, Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 394 U.S. 147 (1969).

Knight v. New York City, et al 1:2022-cv-03215 (State Firearms Dealer's License & (90) day waiting periods.)

Knight v. City of New York, et al 1:2022-cv-10755 (Requiring a state Residence Premise License to keep arms and a separate but not equal state Carry License to bear arms.)

Dropbox Link: Case Files Are Here

Article: A New Yorker is Fighting a One-Man Battle Against the City’s Restrictions on FFLs in the Big Apple

 

[subsonic]

NYPD License Division: "The Ninety Day Waiting Period simply regulates the frequency in which licensees may acquire firearms after their first purchase. Since the rule does not leave an ordinary, law-abiding citizen without the ability to possess a firearm for self-defense, it does not implicate the text of the Second Amendment or infringe on the core of the right defined in Heller, McDonald, and Bruen, thereby obviating the need to discover historical analogues."

My constitution says "keep and bear Arms," not "Arm."

 

[C3D]

Cavalier Knight you are correct. Good luck.

 

[Cavalier Knight]

Thank you much appreciated.

 

[Celt]

Good luck man!

 

[Arjuna]

Good for you man ! Best of luck !

 

[spat]

My constitution says "keep and bear Arms," not "Arm."

I have a simple test.

If it's an unconstitutional infringement on voting rights, or speech, then it's unconstitutional infringement on arms as well.

Imagine requiring a NICS like check and a filled out 4473 to vote LOL. The left would absolutely lose their shit at the mere suggestion.



OFC, the corollary is not necessarily true. The language of the 2A is stronger than the 1A (and way stronger than voting rights), so just because something is a permissible restriction on them doesn't mean it's permissible for guns.

 

[Cavalier Knight]

I concur..

 

[Acer-m14]

 

[RedBreast21]

That will bite them in the ass. It leaves no room for them to support the challenge that is coming. The best practice in the issuance of a law is to make it as clear and ambiguous as possible. This allows you to defend it when challenged. If this is their language as written, then the State AG will have a hard time defending it as it is very clear on what the intent of the founding fathers position was on 2A.

 

[Cavalier Knight]

Defendants Final Reply Memorandum of Law

POINT II
PLAINTIFF FAILS TO STATE A CLAIM UNDER THE SECOND AMENDMENT NEW YORK CIVIL RIGHTS LAW§ 4

Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiffs causes of action under the Second Amendment and New York Civil Rights Law on the ground that Knight's proposed conduct is not constitutionally protected. Specifically, Defendants followed the direction of the Supreme Court to begin with a textual analysis of the Second Amendment. See Bruen, 142 S. Ct. at 2133. Plaintiff largely skips over this step, devoting the bulk of his opposition papers instead to arguing that Defendants failed to present evidence of historical analogues. See Plaintiffs Opposition at 18. But the existence of "relevantly similar" historical analogues is a secondary issue to be reached only if a plaintiffs proposed course of conduct is protected by the Second Amendment's plain text. See Bruen, 142 S. Ct. at 2129-30.

In attempting to shift the focus of the instant motion to dismiss from the first Bruen step to the second step, Plaintiff makes two errors. First, Plaintiff states "the parties do not dispute that Knight's proposed course of conduct is covered by the plain text of the 2nd Amendment.. .. " Plaintiffs opposition at 14. A reading of Defendants' motion papers demonstrates that this statement is obviously incorrect and requires no more discussion. See Defendants' Memo at 9-10. Second, Plaintiff tries to reformulate his proposed course of conduct to shoehorn it within Bruen as follows: "right to publicly carry a handgun for self-defense." Id. at 16. While that is how the proposed course of conduct was defined in Bruen, the Challenged Rule and the law invalidated in Bruen are not at all alike. At issue in Bruen was New York's Sullivan Law that effectively prevented law-abiding from carrying a gun for self-defense by requiring the demonstration of a special need to obtain a license to carry. The Challenged Rule, however, does not regulate who may lawfully carry a firearm. Nor for that matter does it control where a firearm may be carried, the type of firearm that may be carried, or even the requirements to obtain a license to carry. That is precisely why the Challenged Rule does not implicate the right to carry or any other conduct covered by the Second Amendment.

Plaintiffs broad formulation of his proposed course of conduct would capture virtually every firearm regulation and compel municipalities to identify appropriate historical analogues in every single case. This is clearly not what was intended by the Supreme Court as it would essentially render the first part of the Bruen standard meaningless. Accordingly, Defendant's formulation of the proposed course of conduct is more appropriate. See Defendants' Memo at 9 (listing an unlimited number of handguns on a concealed carry license). Such conduct is not protected by the Second Amendment. The Challenged Rule does not restrict Knight's right to carry a handgun in public for self-defense in any location permitted under State law. For this reason, Knight's challenge to 38 RCNY § 5-25(d)(4)(i) can be resolved at the motion to dismiss stage under the first part of the Bruen test without the need for Defendants to identify and analogize "relevantly similar" historical analogues.

 

[Jmac00]

That will bite them in the ass. It leaves no room for them to support the challenge that is coming. The best practice in the issuance of a law is to make it as clear and ambiguous as possible. This allows you to defend it when challenged. If this is their language as written, then the State AG will have a hard time defending it as it is very clear on what the intent of the founding fathers position was on 2A.

and James will simply ignore it, and do whatever the fuck she wants. like do many other unconstitutional laws, Like RED FLAG LAWS.

 

[Cavalier Knight]

That will bite them in the ass. It leaves no room for them to support the challenge that is coming. The best practice in the issuance of a law is to make it as clear and ambiguous as possible. This allows you to defend it when challenged. If this is their language as written, then the State AG will have a hard time defending it as it is very clear on what the intent of the founding fathers position was on 2A.

The beauty of it is my challenge was to NYC Title 38 - R.C.N.Y. and NYC Administrative Code all local rules and/or codes. I made no constitutional challenge to NYS PL because NYS PL does not prohibit the intended conduct.

 

[Jmac00]

Defendants Final Reply Memorandum of Law

POINT II
PLAINTIFF FAILS TO STATE A CLAIM UNDER THE SECOND AMENDMENT NEW YORK CIVIL RIGHTS LAW§ 4

Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiffs causes of action under the Second Amendment and New York Civil Rights Law on the ground that Knight's proposed conduct is not constitutionally protected. Specifically, Defendants followed the direction of the Supreme Court to begin with a textual analysis of the Second Amendment. See Bruen, 142 S. Ct. at 2133. Plaintiff largely skips over this step, devoting the bulk of his opposition papers instead to arguing that Defendants failed to present evidence of historical analogues. See Plaintiffs Opposition at 18. But the existence of "relevantly similar" historical analogues is a secondary issue to be reached only if a plaintiffs proposed course of conduct is protected by the Second Amendment's plain text. See Bruen, 142 S. Ct. at 2129-30.

In attempting to shift the focus of the instant motion to dismiss from the first Bruen step to the second step, Plaintiff makes two errors. First, Plaintiff states "the parties do not dispute that Knight's proposed course of conduct is covered by the plain text of the 2nd Amendment.. .. " Plaintiffs opposition at 14. A reading of Defendants' motion papers demonstrates that this statement is obviously incorrect and requires no more discussion. See Defendants' Memo at 9-10. Second, Plaintiff tries to reformulate his proposed course of conduct to shoehorn it within Bruen as follows: "right to publicly carry a handgun for self-defense." Id. at 16. While that is how the proposed course of conduct was defined in Bruen, the Challenged Rule and the law invalidated in Bruen are not at all alike. At issue in Bruen was New York's Sullivan Law that effectively prevented law-abiding from carrying a gun for self-defense by requiring the demonstration of a special need to obtain a license to carry. The Challenged Rule, however, does not regulate who may lawfully carry a firearm. Nor for that matter does it control where a firearm may be carried, the type of firearm that may be carried, or even the requirements to obtain a license to carry. That is precisely why the Challenged Rule does not implicate the right to carry or any other conduct covered by the Second Amendment.

Plaintiffs broad formulation of his proposed course of conduct would capture virtually every firearm regulation and compel municipalities to identify appropriate historical analogues in every single case. This is clearly not what was intended by the Supreme Court as it would essentially render the first part of the Bruen standard meaningless. Accordingly, Defendant's formulation of the proposed course of conduct is more appropriate. See Defendants' Memo at 9 (listing an unlimited number of handguns on a concealed carry license). Such conduct is not protected by the Second Amendment. The Challenged Rule does not restrict Knight's right to carry a handgun in public for self-defense in any location permitted under State law. For this reason, Knight's challenge to 38 RCNY § 5-25(d)(4)(i) can be resolved at the motion to dismiss stage under the first part of the Bruen test without the need for Defendants to identify and analogize "relevantly similar" historical analogues.

I believe thats the point, you morons, basically they are saying "Obviously, fuck you, we don't give a shit"

 

[RedBreast21]

Defendants Final Reply Memorandum of Law

POINT II
PLAINTIFF FAILS TO STATE A CLAIM UNDER THE SECOND AMENDMENT NEW YORK CIVIL RIGHTS LAW§ 4

Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiffs causes of action under the Second Amendment and New York Civil Rights Law on the ground that Knight's proposed conduct is not constitutionally protected. Specifically, Defendants followed the direction of the Supreme Court to begin with a textual analysis of the Second Amendment. See Bruen, 142 S. Ct. at 2133. Plaintiff largely skips over this step, devoting the bulk of his opposition papers instead to arguing that Defendants failed to present evidence of historical analogues. See Plaintiffs Opposition at 18. But the existence of "relevantly similar" historical analogues is a secondary issue to be reached only if a plaintiffs proposed course of conduct is protected by the Second Amendment's plain text. See Bruen, 142 S. Ct. at 2129-30.

In attempting to shift the focus of the instant motion to dismiss from the first Bruen step to the second step, Plaintiff makes two errors. First, Plaintiff states "the parties do not dispute that Knight's proposed course of conduct is covered by the plain text of the 2nd Amendment.. .. " Plaintiffs opposition at 14. A reading of Defendants' motion papers demonstrates that this statement is obviously incorrect and requires no more discussion. See Defendants' Memo at 9-10. Second, Plaintiff tries to reformulate his proposed course of conduct to shoehorn it within Bruen as follows: "right to publicly carry a handgun for self-defense." Id. at 16. While that is how the proposed course of conduct was defined in Bruen, the Challenged Rule and the law invalidated in Bruen are not at all alike. At issue in Bruen was New York's Sullivan Law that effectively prevented law-abiding from carrying a gun for self-defense by requiring the demonstration of a special need to obtain a license to carry. The Challenged Rule, however, does not regulate who may lawfully carry a firearm. Nor for that matter does it control where a firearm may be carried, the type of firearm that may be carried, or even the requirements to obtain a license to carry. That is precisely why the Challenged Rule does not implicate the right to carry or any other conduct covered by the Second Amendment.

Plaintiffs broad formulation of his proposed course of conduct would capture virtually every firearm regulation and compel municipalities to identify appropriate historical analogues in every single case. This is clearly not what was intended by the Supreme Court as it would essentially render the first part of the Bruen standard meaningless. Accordingly, Defendant's formulation of the proposed course of conduct is more appropriate. See Defendants' Memo at 9 (listing an unlimited number of handguns on a concealed carry license). Such conduct is not protected by the Second Amendment. The Challenged Rule does not restrict Knight's right to carry a handgun in public for self-defense in any location permitted under State law. For this reason, Knight's challenge to 38 RCNY § 5-25(d)(4)(i) can be resolved at the motion to dismiss stage under the first part of the Bruen test without the need for Defendants to identify and analogize "relevantly similar" historical analogues.

Clearly NYC is violating the recent SCOTUS ruling and are just stalling like NYS. Currently the 2nd circuit has heard a case pertaining to the SCOTUS ruling and the measures NYS has put in place. I'm not sure how that will play out or if this case will be affected. I can't imagine the 2nd circuit punting it but anything is possible today.

In 2000 the 11th circuit court, against the strong and unanimous SCOTUS written opinion to the lower court, still sent the election case to to them even after SCOTUS sent in back down. It was such a clear 14th amendment violation that all the justices warned the lower court. Essentially saying you don't want this courts ruling on your record. Politics obviously played a roll in that and will in 2A decisions.

The 2nd circuit court is as political as any other court but its never good to be over ruled on any case. Maybe pride and personal interests play a part here. Can't write a book about your wonderful career as a U.S. district court judge with such and obvious case that you ruled against. lol

I'm sure later in the 2024 run we will hear of expanding the SCOTUS and this will may make the 2nd courts decision easier.

 

[Acer-m14]

That will bite them in the ass. It leaves no room for them to support the challenge that is coming. The best practice in the issuance of a law is to make it as clear and ambiguous as possible. This allows you to defend it when challenged. If this is their language as written, then the State AG will have a hard time defending it as it is very clear on what the intent of the founding fathers position was on 2A.

Rule of Lenity ????

 

[Grimscale]

Plaintiffs broad formulation of his proposed course of conduct would capture virtually every firearm regulation and compel municipalities to identify appropriate historical analogues in every single case. This is clearly not what was intended by the Supreme Court

I thought that was EXACTLY what the S.C. intended when they handed down their ruling.
That any law which is in opposition to the Constitution must be validated by historical analogues.