Cavalier Knight
.40 S&W
I apologize for the long post.
01. Greetings I am an FFL 01 in the City of New York. The NYPD License Division is prohibiting FFL 01s from selling any firearms at "gun shows," "mail-order" or via "interstate (e)commerce" by denying FFL 01s the "Carry Business License" required to "handle and/or transport" inventory as well as the state "Firearms Dealers License" which is required to sell "handguns and/or ammunition."
02. Whereas, withholding these licenses prohibits “Federal Firearms Licensees 01” from selling firearms “intrastate and/or interstate” via “mail-order” and/or “e-commerce” or “intrastate” at “gun shows” in the entire state and Country. Prohibiting “Federal Firearms Licensees 01” in the City of New York from selling firearms "interstate" to “law-abiding” citizens outside of the State of New York via “mail order” or “(e)commerce” is a clear violation of the “(Dormant) Commerce Clause.”
03. Due to zoning laws, I cannot maintain inventory at my licensed “place of business.” This requires transporting inventory to and from “off-site” storage locations. Within the City of New York under Title 38 – § 4-03(k) and “inside” or “outside” of the City of New York under Title 27 – CFR § 478.50(a). I filed a "pro se" Article 78 to constitutionally challenge Title 38 - RCNY and NYC Administrative Code which are used by the NYPD License Division to prohibit these types of firearm sales by FFL 01s. The NYC Business Website states to receive a “Firearms Dealer's License.”
04. I will only reference the “Carry Business License” under Title 38 - RCNY § 5-01(b) as applicable. Because it is the only “Carry Business License” available that allows an “FFL 01” to lawfully travel “unrestricted” with firearms to “sporting arms events” i.e., “gun shows" and/or “off-site” firearms storage locations under, Title 27 - CFR § 478.50(a), § 478.100(a)(1), NYS PL §§§ 400.00(1)(n)-(2)(f)-(8) and Title 38 - RCNY § 4-03(k).
05. The NYPD License Division also refuses to issue a state firearms dealers license to FFL 01s who don't possess a "brick & mortar" store. Although possession of a "brick & mortar" store is not a requirement of federal law or NYS PL § 400.00(1)(n) in the State of New York.
(a) Once the Court determines that any law discriminates against “interstate commerce,” it must then determine whether the law “advances a legitimate local purpose that cannot be adequately served by reasonable nondiscriminatory alternatives.” If it does, then the law is constitutional; if not, the law is void. Importantly, this test is a high hurdle to clear. It is so rarely overcome, in fact, that the Court frequently refers to it as a “virtually per se rule of invalidity.”
06. As such, I cited the decisions in Granholm v. Heald, 544 U.S. 460, 473 (2005), and Chwick v. Mulvey, 2010 NY Slip Op 09911.
07. However the closing paragraph of the judge's decision clearly states:
08. I never challenged” any parts of NYS PL § 400.00. In fact, my "Prayer for Relief" explicitly stated that "Title 38 - Rules of the City of New York and/or NYC Administrative Code" are in violation of NYS PL § 400.00. Why would I contradict my own argument?
09. Therefore how can a New York State Supreme Court judge dismiss my case by making "post hoc" decisions based upon challenges against NYS PL § 400.00 that I never made within the body of my Article 78 Petition? The Court simply dismissed my case for illusory reasons created by the Respondent(s) and the Court out of thin air. Because there is no way that "Title 38 - Rules of the City of New York and/or NYC Administrative Code" can supersede the 1st and 2nd Amendments, Equal Protection, Due Process, Privileges and Immunities, and the (Dormant) Commerce Clause. Also, inhibition of my ability to perform work constitutes an “injury in fact” which has Article III standing in a federal court of law. Interstate commerce violations alone require "strict scrutiny" review. The premise of my case is similar to NYSRPA v. The City of New York, No. 18-280 where they knew their provisions were unlawful only changing them when SCOTUS granted cert. However, my issue is a case of "first impression" which was judicially sabotaged.
10. So they unlawfully shifted my argument from constitutionally challenging "Title 38 - Rules of the City of New York and/or NYC Administrative Code" to constitutionally challenging NYS PL § 400.00 which is completely false. While completely ignoring and making no mention whatsoever of the Respondents numerous "documented false statements" and violations of federal and state law. On 10.29.2020 my Article 78 was egregiously dismissed at the state level. I have reached out to several attorneys regarding an appeal and/or filing in federal court.
11. These were two conversations I had with Alan M. Gottlieb of the Second Amendment Foundation via Facebook Messenger.
12. My documents can be found at the links below.
(01) Article 78 - 151725/2020 case documents located at: My Dropbox - Submitted
(02) Letter to Hon. Lindsey Graham - Chairman Senate Judiciary Committee: My Dropbox - USDOJ Request for Statement of Interest
(03) I understand that these are difficult times. It's not required but if you want to and can I appreciate any contribution. Thank you for your kind consideration in this matter.
(04) Link: GoFundMe
01. Greetings I am an FFL 01 in the City of New York. The NYPD License Division is prohibiting FFL 01s from selling any firearms at "gun shows," "mail-order" or via "interstate (e)commerce" by denying FFL 01s the "Carry Business License" required to "handle and/or transport" inventory as well as the state "Firearms Dealers License" which is required to sell "handguns and/or ammunition."
02. Whereas, withholding these licenses prohibits “Federal Firearms Licensees 01” from selling firearms “intrastate and/or interstate” via “mail-order” and/or “e-commerce” or “intrastate” at “gun shows” in the entire state and Country. Prohibiting “Federal Firearms Licensees 01” in the City of New York from selling firearms "interstate" to “law-abiding” citizens outside of the State of New York via “mail order” or “(e)commerce” is a clear violation of the “(Dormant) Commerce Clause.”
03. Due to zoning laws, I cannot maintain inventory at my licensed “place of business.” This requires transporting inventory to and from “off-site” storage locations. Within the City of New York under Title 38 – § 4-03(k) and “inside” or “outside” of the City of New York under Title 27 – CFR § 478.50(a). I filed a "pro se" Article 78 to constitutionally challenge Title 38 - RCNY and NYC Administrative Code which are used by the NYPD License Division to prohibit these types of firearm sales by FFL 01s. The NYC Business Website states to receive a “Firearms Dealer's License.”
(a) About: A “Firearms Dealer License” is “required” for all businesses that sell handguns and/or ammunition in the City of New York. See, cknight.pw/2QPGW6x.
(b) Apply: Each applicant “must” have a “Class 1 Federal Firearms License (FFL).” See, cknight.pw/2CLgh7Q.
(c) Operating & Renewing: (5) All employees handling inventory “must possess” licenses or permits issued by the License Division, such as a “Carry Business License” or a Premises Business License in order to handle inventory. See, cknight.pw/2NzaROh.
04. I will only reference the “Carry Business License” under Title 38 - RCNY § 5-01(b) as applicable. Because it is the only “Carry Business License” available that allows an “FFL 01” to lawfully travel “unrestricted” with firearms to “sporting arms events” i.e., “gun shows" and/or “off-site” firearms storage locations under, Title 27 - CFR § 478.50(a), § 478.100(a)(1), NYS PL §§§ 400.00(1)(n)-(2)(f)-(8) and Title 38 - RCNY § 4-03(k).
05. The NYPD License Division also refuses to issue a state firearms dealers license to FFL 01s who don't possess a "brick & mortar" store. Although possession of a "brick & mortar" store is not a requirement of federal law or NYS PL § 400.00(1)(n) in the State of New York.
(a) Once the Court determines that any law discriminates against “interstate commerce,” it must then determine whether the law “advances a legitimate local purpose that cannot be adequately served by reasonable nondiscriminatory alternatives.” If it does, then the law is constitutional; if not, the law is void. Importantly, this test is a high hurdle to clear. It is so rarely overcome, in fact, that the Court frequently refers to it as a “virtually per se rule of invalidity.”
06. As such, I cited the decisions in Granholm v. Heald, 544 U.S. 460, 473 (2005), and Chwick v. Mulvey, 2010 NY Slip Op 09911.
(1) The first paragraph of my Petition clearly states that I am “not challenging” NYS PL § 400.00-(2)(f).
(2) And the second paragraph of my Petition clearly states that "As a “Federal Firearms Licensee,” hereinafter “FFL 01,” Knight is only “constitutionally” challenging “Title 38 - Rules of the City of New York and/or NYC Administrative Code.”
07. However the closing paragraph of the judge's decision clearly states:
(a) "The bulk of Knight’s petition is devoted to his argument that the statutory framework for firearms licensing that the New York State Legislature promulgated in Penal Law § 400.00 is unconstitutional because it violates both the United States Constitution’s Second Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. See verified petition, ¶¶ 63-326.
08. I never challenged” any parts of NYS PL § 400.00. In fact, my "Prayer for Relief" explicitly stated that "Title 38 - Rules of the City of New York and/or NYC Administrative Code" are in violation of NYS PL § 400.00. Why would I contradict my own argument?
09. Therefore how can a New York State Supreme Court judge dismiss my case by making "post hoc" decisions based upon challenges against NYS PL § 400.00 that I never made within the body of my Article 78 Petition? The Court simply dismissed my case for illusory reasons created by the Respondent(s) and the Court out of thin air. Because there is no way that "Title 38 - Rules of the City of New York and/or NYC Administrative Code" can supersede the 1st and 2nd Amendments, Equal Protection, Due Process, Privileges and Immunities, and the (Dormant) Commerce Clause. Also, inhibition of my ability to perform work constitutes an “injury in fact” which has Article III standing in a federal court of law. Interstate commerce violations alone require "strict scrutiny" review. The premise of my case is similar to NYSRPA v. The City of New York, No. 18-280 where they knew their provisions were unlawful only changing them when SCOTUS granted cert. However, my issue is a case of "first impression" which was judicially sabotaged.
10. So they unlawfully shifted my argument from constitutionally challenging "Title 38 - Rules of the City of New York and/or NYC Administrative Code" to constitutionally challenging NYS PL § 400.00 which is completely false. While completely ignoring and making no mention whatsoever of the Respondents numerous "documented false statements" and violations of federal and state law. On 10.29.2020 my Article 78 was egregiously dismissed at the state level. I have reached out to several attorneys regarding an appeal and/or filing in federal court.
11. These were two conversations I had with Alan M. Gottlieb of the Second Amendment Foundation via Facebook Messenger.
Conversation 01: 10.19.2018
Me: I hope all is well. I'm a Life Member. I have been reaching out to the SAF about some issues I'm having as an FFL 01 being unlawfully restricted from selling firearms in the State of New York. I never get a reply to any of my letters that I send to your organization. I know you're busy but hopefully I can get some feedback soon. Thank you.
AG SAF: Our legal team has been exploring the problem. It does not look like your approach will work to solve it. You are on our radar.
Me: Interesting ok thank you
Conversation 2: 10.29.2020
Me: Greetings I am an FFL 01 in NYC. The NYPD does not allow FFL 01s to sell firearms via e-commerce, mail-order, or at gun shows. A NYS Supreme Court judge just ignored my entire case disregarding the constitutional and commerce issues without even a mention of it. I need to appeal this case. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.
AG SAF: Cavalier, unfortunately, your case will not succeed. Our legal advisory board has gone over it and does not want to be involved.
Me: ok, The NYPD is prohibiting all FFL 01s from engaging in interstate commerce in firearms and that's a non-issue? Ok, thanks for your timely response.
AG SAF: Not a winning issue in your circuit and SCOTUS needs to hear a more far-reaching case first.
Me: Thank you.
AG SAF: Welcome.
Me: One question I'm just confused as to how an interstate commerce prohibition is something a circuit can just choose to ignore like or dislike after Granholm v. Heald, Chwick v. Mulvey, etc
AG SAF: Because they can if they do not want you to win.
Me: Even if the Appellate Court has already decided another firearms case in my favor in Chwick v. Mulvey??
He stopped responding at that point.
12. My documents can be found at the links below.
(01) Article 78 - 151725/2020 case documents located at: My Dropbox - Submitted
(02) Letter to Hon. Lindsey Graham - Chairman Senate Judiciary Committee: My Dropbox - USDOJ Request for Statement of Interest
(03) I understand that these are difficult times. It's not required but if you want to and can I appreciate any contribution. Thank you for your kind consideration in this matter.
(04) Link: GoFundMe
