Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
NewYorkStateRifle&PistolAssn,Inc.,etal.v.Cuomo,etal.
ConnecticutCitizensDefenseLeague,etal.v.Malloy,etal.
In the
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
AUGUSTTERM2014
Nos.1436cv(Lead);1437cv(XAP)
NEWYORKSTATERIFLEANDPISTOLASSOCIATION,INC.,WESTCHESTER
COUNTYFIREARMSOWNERSASSOCIATION,INC.,SPORTSMENS
ASSOCIATIONFORFIREARMSEDUCATION,INC.,NEWYORKSTATE
AMATEURTRAPSHOOTINGASSOCIATION,INC.,BEDELLCUSTOM,
BEIKIRCHAMMUNITIONCORPORATION,BLUELINETACTICAL&POLICE
SUPPLY,LLC,BATAVIAMARINE&SPORTINGSUPPLY,WILLIAMNOJAY,
THOMASGALVIN,ROGERHORVATH,
PlaintiffsAppellantsCrossAppellees,
v.
ANDREWM.CUOMO,inhisofficialcapacityasGovernoroftheState
ofNewYork,ERICT.SCHNEIDERMAN,inhisofficialcapacityas
AttorneyGeneraloftheStateofNewYork,JOSEPHA.DAMICO,in
hisofficialcapacityasSuperintendentoftheNewYorkStatePolice,
DefendantsAppelleesCrossAppellants,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
GERALDJ.GILL,inhisofficialcapacityasChiefofPolicefortheTown
ofLancaster,NewYork,LAWRENCEFRIEDMAN,
DefendantsAppellees,
FRANKA.SEDITA,III,inhisofficialcapacityasDistrictAttorneyfor
ErieCounty,
Defendant.
OnAppealfromtheUnitedStatesDistrictCourt
fortheWesternDistrictofNewYork
No.14319cv
THECONNECTICUTCITIZENSDEFENSELEAGUE,THECOALITIONOF
CONNECTICUTSPORTSMEN,JUNESHEW,RABBIMITCHELLROCKLIN,
STEPHANIECYPHER,PETEROWENS,BRIANMCCLAIN,ANDREW
MUELLER,HILLERSPORTS,LLC,MDSHOOTINGSPORTS,LLC,
PlaintiffsAppellants,
v.
DANNELP.MALLOY,inhisofficialcapacityasGovernoroftheState
ofConnecticut,KEVINT.KANE,inhisofficialcapacityasChief
StatesAttorneyoftheStateofConnecticut,DORAB.SCHRIRO,inher
officialcapacityasCommissioneroftheConnecticutDepartmentof
EmergencyServicesandPublicProtection,DAVIDI.COHEN,inhis
officialcapacityasStatesAttorneyfortheStamford/Norwalk
JudicialDistrict,GeographicalAreasNos.1and20,JOHNC.SMRIGA,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
inhisofficialcapacityasStatesAttorneyfortheFairfieldJudicial
District,GeographicalAreaNo.2,MAUREENPLATT,inherofficial
capacityasStatesAttorneyfortheWaterburyJudicialDistrict,
GeographicalAreaNo.4,KEVIND.LAWLOR,inhisofficialcapacity
asStatesAttorneyfortheAnsonia/MilfordJudicialDistrict,
GeographicalAreasNos.5and22,MICHAELDEARINGTON,inhis
officialcapacityasStatesAttorneyfortheNewHavenJudicial
District,GeographicalAreaNos.7and23,PETERA.MCSHANE,inhis
officialcapacityasStatesAttorneyfortheMiddlesexJudicial
District,GeographicalAreaNo.9,MICHAELL.REGAN,inhisofficial
capacityasStatesAttorneyfortheNewLondonJudicialDistrict,
GeographicalAreaNos.10and21,PATRICIAM.FROEHLICH,GAILP.
HARDY,inherofficialcapacityasStatesAttorneyfortheHartford
JudicialDistrict,GeographicalAreasNos.12,13,and14,BRIAN
PRELESKI,inhisofficialcapacityasStatesAttorneyfortheNew
BritainJudicialDistrict,GeographicalAreaNos.15and17,DAVID
SHEPACK,inhisofficialcapacityasStatesAttorneyfortheLitchfield
JudicialDistrict,GeographicalAreaNo.18,MATTHEWC.GEDANSKY,
inhisofficialcapacityasStatesAttorneyfortheTollandJudicial
District,GeographicalAreaNo.19,STEPHENJ.SEDENSKYIII,inhis
officialcapacityasStatesAttorneyfortheDanburyJudicialDistrict,
GeographicalAreaNo.3,
DefendantsAppellees.
OnAppealfromtheUnitedStatesDistrictCourt
fortheDistrictofConnecticut
ARGUED:DECEMBER9,2014
DECIDED:OCTOBER19,2015
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Before:CABRANES,LOHIER,andDRONEY,CircuitJudges.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
the judgment of the District Court for the Western District of New
York, we REVERSE in part certain vagueness holdings, and we
otherwise AFFIRM that judgment insofar as it upheld the
prohibition of semiautomatic assault weapons and largecapacity
magazinesandinvalidatedtheloadlimit.
DAVIDTHOMPSON,CharlesJ.Cooper,Peter
A.Patterson,Cooper&Kirk,PLLC,
WashingtonDC,ANDBrianT.Stapleton,
MatthewS.Lerner,GoldbergSegallaLLP,
WhitePlains,NY,StephenP.Halbrook,
Fairfax,VA,forPlaintiffsAppellants.
BARBARAD.UNDERWOOD,SolicitorGeneral
oftheStateofNewYork(AnishaS.
Dasgupta,ClaudeS.Platton,Officeofthe
SolicitorGeneral,onthebrief),forEricT.
Schneiderman,AttorneyGeneralforthe
StateofNewYork,NewYork,NY,for
DefendantsAppelleesCrossAppellants
AndrewM.Cuomo,etal.
MAURAB.MURPHYOSBORNE,Assistant
AttorneyGeneraloftheStateof
Connecticut(PerryZinnRowthorn,
MichaelK.Skold,GregoryT.DAuria,
OfficeoftheAttorneyGeneral,onthebrief),
forGeorgeJepsen,AttorneyGeneralofthe
StateofConnecticut,Hartford,CT,for
DefendantsAppelleesDannelP.Malloy,etal.
1
2
3
JOSA.CABRANES,CircuitJudge:
legislationenactedbytheNewYorkandConnecticutlegislaturesin
10
11
12
Covello,Judge),plaintiffsinbothsuitsnowpresstwoargumentson
13
14
15
provisionsofthestatutesasunconstitutionallyvague.Defendantsin
16
17
18
19
vague.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
AFFIRMinpartthejudgmentoftheDistrictCourtfortheDistrictof
part its holding with respect to the Remington. With respect to the
judgmentoftheDistrictCourtfortheWesternDistrictofNewYork,
weREVERSEinpartcertainvaguenessholdings,andweotherwise
10
invalidatedtheloadlimit.
11
12
BACKGROUND
I.
PriorAssaultWeaponLegislation
13
NewYorkandConnecticuthavelongrestrictedpossessionof
14
15
16
17
criminalizedthepossessionoffirearmscapableoffullyautomatic,
18
19
specificallyenumeratedsemiautomaticfirearms.1
20
21
thoughttobecausedbycertainfirearms,theU.S.Congressenacted
22
1993Conn.Pub.Acts93306,1(a)(J.A.,No.14319cv,at943).
catalogued18specificallyprohibitedfirearms,including,asrelevant
whichprohibitedanysemiautomaticfirearmthatcontainedatleast
10
11
12
expiredin2004,pursuanttoitssunsetprovision.4
13
14
15
16
17
ViolentCrimeControlandLawEnforcementActof1994,Pub.L.No.
103322,tit.XI,subtit.A110102(b),108Stat.1796,1997.
2
Id.110103.
Id.110105.
SeeActofAug.8,2000,ch.189,10,2000N.Y.Laws2788,2792(J.A.,No.
1436cv,at92330);2001Conn.Pub.Acts01130,1(J.A.,No.14319cv,at949
60).Likethefederalstatute,the2000NewYorkstatutealsorestrictedthe
possessionofcertainlargecapacitymagazines.
5
provisionsandthusremainedinforceuntilamendedbythestatutes
atissuehere.
inadditiontootherrecentmassshootings,providedtheimmediate
impetusforthelegislationatissueinthisappeal.6
II.
TheNewYorkLegislation
10
11
Enforcement Act (SAFE Act) on January 15, 2013.7 The SAFE Act
12
expandsthedefinitionofprohibitedassaultweaponsbyreplacing
13
14
15
prohibitedassaultweaponifitcontainsanyoneofanenumerated
16
17
conspicuouslyprotrudingpistolgrip,athumbholestock,abayonet
18
mount,aflashsuppressor,abarrelshroud,andagrenadelauncher.8
SeeDefendantsBr.,No.1436cv,at1011;DefendantsBr.,No.14319
cv,at11&n.3.
6
ActofJan.15,2013,ch.1,2013N.Y.Laws1,amendedbyActofMar.29,
2013,ch.57,pt.FF,2013N.Y.Laws290,389.
7
Theprohibitedfeaturesdependonwhetherthesemiautomaticweapon
isarifle,pistol,orshotgun,thoughthelistsoverlapsignificantly:
8
Assaultweaponmeans
(a)asemiautomaticriflethathasanabilitytoacceptadetachable
magazineandhasatleastoneofthefollowingcharacteristics:(i)afolding
ortelescopingstock;(ii)apistolgripthatprotrudesconspicuously
beneaththeactionoftheweapon;(iii)athumbholestock;(iv)asecond
handgriporaprotrudinggripthatcanbeheldbythenontriggerhand;
(v)abayonetmount;(vi)aflashsuppressor,muzzlebreak,muzzle
compensator,orthreadedbarreldesignedtoaccommodateaflash
suppressor,muzzlebreak,ormuzzlecompensator;(vii)agrenade
launcher;or
(b)asemiautomaticshotgunthathasatleastoneofthefollowing
characteristics:(i)afoldingortelescopingstock;(ii)athumbholestock;
(iii)asecondhandgriporaprotrudinggripthatcanbeheldbythenon
triggerhand;(iv)afixedmagazinecapacityinexcessofsevenrounds;(v)
anabilitytoacceptadetachablemagazine;or
(c)asemiautomaticpistolthathasanabilitytoacceptadetachable
magazineandhasatleastoneofthefollowingcharacteristics:(i)afolding
ortelescopingstock;(ii)athumbholestock;(iii)asecondhandgripora
protrudinggripthatcanbeheldbythenontriggerhand;(iv)capacityto
acceptanammunitionmagazinethatattachestothepistoloutsideofthe
pistolgrip;(v)athreadedbarrelcapableofacceptingabarrelextender,
flashsuppressor,forwardhandgrip,orsilencer;(vi)ashroudthatis
attachedto,orpartiallyorcompletelyencircles,thebarrelandthat
permitstheshootertoholdthefirearmwiththenontriggerhandwithout
beingburned;(vii)amanufacturedweightoffiftyouncesormorewhen
thepistolisunloaded;or(viii)asemiautomaticversionofanautomatic
rifle,shotgunorfirearm....
N.Y.PenalLaw265.00(22)(emphasissupplied).
Id.265.02(7),265.10.
10
registerthoseweaponswiththeNewYorkStatePolice.10
The SAFE Act also bans magazines that can hold more than
beforeSeptember1994.
10
11
12
withmorethansevenroundsofammunition.12(Forthepurposeof
13
thisdefinition,aroundisasingleunitofammunition.)Asoriginally
14
15
16
17
18
sevenroundloadlimit.Thus,asamended,thestatutepermitsaNew
19
Yorkgunownertopossessamagazinecapableofholdinguptoten
Id.265.00(22)(g)(v).
10
Id.265.00(23)(a).
11
Id.265.37.
12
11
officialshootingcompetition.13
III.
TheConnecticutLegislation
Several months after New York passed the SAFE Act, and
ConnecticutadoptedAnActConcerningGunViolencePrevention
statute on June 18, 2013.14 Like its New York analogue, the
Connecticutlegislationreplacedthestatestwofeaturedefinitionof
10
prohibitedassaultweaponswithastricteronefeaturetest,15using
11
12
13
14
Id.265.20(a)(7f).
13
2013Conn.Pub.Act133,asamendedby2013Conn.Pub.Act13220.
14
Conn.Gen.Stat.53202a(1)(E).
15
Id.53202a(1)(E),53202b(a)(1),53202c(a).LikeNewYorksSAFE
Act,Connecticutsstatutedifferentiatesamongsemiautomaticrifles,pistols,and
shotguns:
16
Assaultweaponmeans...[a]nysemiautomaticfirearm...thatmeets
thefollowingcriteria:
(i)Asemiautomatic,centerfireriflethathasanabilitytoaccepta
detachablemagazineandhasatleastoneofthefollowing:(I)Afoldingor
telescopingstock;(II)Anygripoftheweapon,includingapistolgrip,a
thumbholestock,oranyotherstock,theuseofwhichwouldallowan
12
individualtogriptheweapon,resultinginanyfingeronthetriggerhand
inadditiontothetriggerfingerbeingdirectlybelowanyportionofthe
actionoftheweaponwhenfiring;(III)Aforwardpistolgrip;(IV)Aflash
suppressor;or(V)Agrenadelauncherorflarelauncher;or
(ii)Asemiautomatic,centerfireriflethathasafixedmagazinewith
theabilitytoacceptmorethantenrounds;or
(iii)Asemiautomatic,centerfireriflethathasanoveralllengthof
lessthanthirtyinches;or
(iv)Asemiautomaticpistolthathasanabilitytoaccepta
detachablemagazineandhasatleastoneofthefollowing:(I)Anability
toacceptadetachableammunitionmagazinethatattachesatsome
locationoutsideofthepistolgrip;(II)Athreadedbarrelcapableof
acceptingaflashsuppressor,forwardpistolgriporsilencer;(III)A
shroudthatisattachedto,orpartiallyorcompletelyencircles,thebarrel
andthatpermitstheshootertofirethefirearmwithoutbeingburned,
exceptaslidethatenclosesthebarrel;or(IV)Asecondhandgrip;or
(v)Asemiautomaticpistolwithafixedmagazinethathasthe
abilitytoacceptmorethantenrounds;or
(vi)Asemiautomaticshotgunthathasbothofthefollowing:(I)A
foldingortelescopingstock;and(II)Anygripoftheweapon,includinga
pistolgrip,athumbholestock,oranyotherstock,theuseofwhichwould
allowanindividualtogriptheweapon,resultinginanyfingeronthe
triggerhandinadditiontothetriggerfingerbeingdirectlybelowany
portionoftheactionoftheweaponwhenfiring;or(vii)Asemiautomatic
shotgunthathastheabilitytoacceptadetachablemagazine;or(viii)A
shotgunwitharevolvingcylinder....
Id.53202a(1)(emphasissupplied).
Id.at53202a(1);seealsoPlaintiffsBr.,No.14319cv,at5;Defendants
Br.,No.14319cv,at14.Ofthese183specificallyenumeratedprohibited
17
13
semiautomaticassaultweapons,anditalsocontainsagrandfather
state.18
canhold,orcanbereadilyrestoredorconvertedtoaccept,more
thantenroundsofammunition.19UnlikeitsNewYorkcounterpart,
10
11
limitrule.
12
IV.
ProceduralHistory
13
Plaintiffsacombinationofadvocacygroups,businesses,and
14
15
York and Connecticut and other state officials, first in the Western
16
District of New York on March 21, 2013 and then in the District of
17
18
weapons,allbutonearesemiautomaticweapons.Thesinglenonsemiautomatic
firearmistheRemingtonTacticalRifleModel7615,apumpactionrifle.
DefendantsBr.,No.14319cv,at58.
Conn.Gen.Stat.53202d(a)(2)(A).
18
Id.53202w(a)(1).Aswithprohibitedfirearms,prebanownersof
prohibitedmagazinescanretainthemifregisteredwiththestate.Id.53
202x(a)(1).
19
14
that
Amendment.20
numerous
specific
provisions
of
each
statute
are
10
11
NewYorkgrantedinpartanddeniedinpartthecrossmotionsfor
12
13
14
15
16
scrutiny.22TheCourtalsoheld,however,thatthesevenroundload
17
limitdidnotsurviveintermediatescrutiny.TheCourtfurtherfound
18
PlaintiffsbroughtadditionalclaimsforviolationoftheCommerce
Clause(intheNewYorkaction)andtheEqualProtectionClause(inthe
Connecticutaction).TheDistrictCourtsdismissedtheseclaims,whicharenotat
issueonappeal.
20
NewYorkStateRifle&PistolAssn,Inc.v.Cuomo(NYSRPA),990F.
Supp.2d349(W.D.N.Y.2013).
21
SeepostSectionV.dV.eforfurtherdiscussionofintermediatescrutiny
analysis.
22
15
hencevoid,23butdeniedplaintiffsmotionregardingtheremaining
provisionschallengedforvagueness.24Insum,ChiefJudgeSkretny
certainmarginalaspectsofthelaw.
itsentirety.25LikehiscounterpartinNewYork,JudgeCovelloheld
ThethreevoidedprovisionsofNewYorksSAFEActwere(1)the
prohibitiononpistolswithadetachablemagazinethatareasemiautomatic
versionofanautomaticrifle,shotgunorfirearm,N.Y.PenalLaw
265.00(22)(c)(viii);(2)theidentificationofthemisspelledmilitarystylefeature
muzzlebreak,id.265.00(22)(a)(vi),whichdefendantsconcedehasno
acceptedmeaningandwasintendedtoreadmuzzlebrake,seeDefendantsBr.,
No.1436cv,at22;and(3)anerroneousandifclauseappearinginN.Y.Penal
Law265.36,whichtheDistrictCourtfoundtobeincompleteandentirely
indecipherable.NYSRPA,990F.Supp.2dat376.Defendantsdonotchallenge
onappealtheDistrictCourtsrulingonthisthird(andif)provision.
23
Asrelevanthere,theDistrictCourtdismissedplaintiffsvagueness
claimsastothefollowingprovisions:(1)theprohibitionofmagazinesthatcan
bereadilyrestoredorconvertedtoacceptmorethantenammunitionrounds,
N.Y.PenalLaw265.00(23)(a);(2)theprohibitiononsemiautomaticshotguns
withafixedmagazinecapacityinexcessofsevenrounds,id.265.00
(22)(b)(iv);and(3)theexclusionfromrestrictionofsemiautomaticshotgunsthat
cannotholdmorethanfiveroundsofammunitioninafixedordetachable
magazine,id.265.00(22)(g)(iii).TheCourtalsorejectedfouradditional
vaguenesschallengesthatplaintiffsdonotpursueonappeal.SeeNYSRPA,990F.
Supp.2dat37478.
24
Shewv.Malloy,994F.Supp.2d234(D.Conn.2014).
25
16
Amendment.Healsodismissedallofplaintiffsvaguenessclaims.26
10
11
automaticrifle,shotgun,orfirearm.28
12
DISCUSSION
13
Theseappealspresenttwoquestions:first,whethertheSecond
14
15
16
17
sufficientnoticeoftheconductproscribed.
Becausebothjudgesresolvedthepartiesmotionsforsummary
judgment,theysimultaneouslydeniedasmootplaintiffsrespectivemotionsfor
preliminaryinjunctions.
26
N.Y.PenalLaw265.00(22)(a)(vi);seeantenote23andaccompanying
27
text.
Id.265.00(22)(c)(viii);seeantenote23andaccompanyingtext.
28
17
judgment,construingtheevidenceinthelightmostfavorabletothe
determiningtheconstitutionalityofastatute.30PursuanttoFederal
movantisentitledtojudgmentasamatteroflaw.
V.
SecondAmendmentChallenge
10
11
12
13
ownjurisprudence,andtheexamplesprovidedbyoursistercircuits,
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
unconstitutional.
21
Delaneyv.BankofAmericaCorp.,766F.3d163,167(2dCir.2014).
29
UnitedStatesv.Stewart,590F.3d93,109(2dCir.2009).
30
18
a. HellerandMcDonald
Militia,beingnecessarytothesecurityofafreeState,therightofthe
DistrictofColumbiav.Heller.32InHeller,theSupremeCourt,basedon
10
11
unlimited,Helleremphasizedthattherightwasnotarighttokeep
12
13
14
15
purposeslikeselfdefense.35
16
Havingestablishedthesebasicprecepts,Hellerconcludedthat
17
18
U.S.Const.amend.II.
31
554U.S.570(2008).
32
Id.at592(emphasissupplied).
33
Id.at626.
34
Id.at624(citingUnitedStatesv.Miller,307U.S.174,179(1939)).
35
Heller,554U.S.at635.
36
19
Court noted that handguns are the most popular weapon chosen
observed,theneedfordefenseofself,family,andpropertyismost
acute.37
presumptively
mentallyill,...lawsforbiddingthecarryingoffirearmsinsensitive
10
11
12
13
14
weapons.39
lawful
such
regulatory
measures
as
15
16
17
Court did imply that such challenges are subject to one of the
18
19
Id.at62829.
37
Id.at62627&n.26.
38
Id.at627(internalquotationmarksomitted).
39
Id.at628.
40
20
thatmanyapplicationsoftheSecondAmendmentwouldremainin
doubt.41
respectthe Court held for the first time that the Fourteenth
states.43Otherwise,McDonalddidnotexpanduponHellersanalysis
10
11
12
standardsbywhichlowercourtsshouldassesstheconstitutionality
13
offirearmsrestrictions.
14
15
Id.at635.
41
561U.S.742(2010).See,e.g.,JosephBlocher,NewApproachestoOld
QuestionsinGunScholarship,50TULSAL.REV.477,478(2015)(Hellerand
McDonaldprovokedasmanyquestionsastheyanswered,creatingaresulting
void[that]invitesandpracticallydemandsmorescholarship.).
42
SeegenerallyLAURENCEH.TRIBE,AMERICANCONSTITUTIONALLAW1317
(3ded.2000)(describingtheprocessbywhichAmendmentsinitiallydesignedto
limitthepowersofthefederalgovernmentcametobeappliedtoactionsofthe
states).
43
561U.S.at786(opinionofAlito,J.).
44
21
b. AnalyticalRubric
LackingmoredetailedguidancefromtheSupremeCourt,this
inquiry.
protectedbytheSecondAmendment.46Ifthechallengedrestriction
10
Otherwise,wemovetothesecondstepofourinquiry,inwhichwe
11
mustdetermineandapplytheappropriatelevelofscrutiny.47
12
13
McDonaldandourownprecedentsinKachalskyandDecastro.48Italso
14
15
16
Tenth,Eleventh,andD.C.Circuits,49andwiththeapproachusedin
17
otherareasofconstitutionallaw.50
SeeKachalskyv.Cty.ofWestchester,701F.3d81(2dCir.2012);United
Statesv.Decastro,682F.3d160(2dCir.2012).
45
Kachalsky,701F.3dat93.
46
Seeid.
47
Seeantenote45.
48
SeeGeorgiaCarry.Org,Inc.v.U.S.ArmyCorpsofEngrs,788F.3d1318,
1322(11thCir.2015);UnitedStatesv.Chovan,735F.3d1127,1136(9thCir.2013);
49
22
c. FirstStep:WhethertheSecondAmendmentApplies
sortsofweaponsthatare(1)incommonuse51and(2)typically
considereachrequirementinturn.
i. CommonUse
Thepartiescontestwhethertheassaultweaponsatissuehere
10
arecommonlyowned.Plaintiffsarguethattheweaponsatissueare
11
12
13
weapon,thepopularAR15,havebeenmanufacturedbetween1986
NatlRifleAssnofAm.,Inc.v.BureauofAlcohol,Tobacco,Firearms&Explosives,700
F.3d185,194(5thCir.2012);UnitedStatesv.Greeno,679F.3d510,518(6thCir.
2012);Hellerv.DistrictofColumbia(HellerII),670F.3d1244,1252(D.C.Cir.2011);
Ezellv.CityofChicago,651F.3d684,70203(7thCir.2011);UnitedStatesv.Chester,
628F.3d673,680(4thCir.2010);UnitedStatesv.Reese,627F.3d792,80001(10th
Cir.2010);UnitedStatesv.Marzzarella,614F.3d85,89(3dCir.2010).
Decastro,682F.3dat167;seeHeller,554U.S.at595;Kachalsky,701F.3dat
50
94.
Heller,554U.S.at627.
51
Id.at625.Inaddition,theweaponsmustactuallybeusedlawfully.Id.
Becausethelawsatissuerestrictthemerepossessionofassaultweapons,and
nothoworwhytheyareused,weneednotconsiderthatadditionallimitation.
52
23
and March 2013.53 Plaintiffs further assert that only 7.5 percent of
that most owners of assault weapons own only one or two such
small number of homes, but rather spread widely among the gun
defendantsarguethatthestatisticsinflatethenumberofindividual
10
11
12
ownersownmultipleassaultweapons.
13
14
15
16
theNewYorkandConnecticutstatutes.Thoughfewerstatisticsare
17
availableformagazines,thosestatisticssuggestthatabout25million
18
19
federalassaultweaponsbanwasenacted,andnearly50millionsuch
J.A.,No.14319cv,at146.
53
J.A.,No.1436cv,at162.
54
PlaintiffsReplyBr.,No.1436cv,at67.
55
SeeJ.A.,No.1436cv,at1091;J.A.,No.14319cv,at2251.
56
24
capableofacceptingonewereapprovedforimportby2000.57
Heller. The D.C. Circuit reached the same conclusion in its well
reasoneddecisioninHellerII,whichupheldtheconstitutionalityofa
DistrictofColumbiaguncontrolactsubstantiallysimilartothoseat
issuehere.58
10
11
12
handgunsatissueinHeller,whichwerethemostpopularweapon
13
chosenbyAmericansforselfdefenseinthehome.59Butnothingin
14
15
16
17
subset.60
18
J.A.,No.14319cv,at578.
57
HellerII,670F.3dat1261(findingthattheAR15andmagazineswith
capacitiesexceedingtenroundswereincommonuseasdefinedbyHeller).
58
Heller,554U.S.at629.
59
Id.at582(emphasissupplied).
60
25
ii. TypicalPossession
Wemustnextdeterminewhetherassaultweaponsandlarge
capacitymagazinesaretypicallypossessedbylawabidingcitizens
largelystatisticalinquiry,typical[]possess[ion]requiresustolook
into both broad patterns of use and the subjective motives of gun
owners.
typicaluse.Plaintiffssuggestthatassaultweaponsareamongthe
10
11
12
disproportionatelyinguncrimes,ratherthanforlawfulpursuitslike
13
selfdefenseandhunting.63
14
15
16
Id.at625.
61
J.A.,No.14319cv,at75366(declarationofballisticsresearcher).
62
SeeDefendantsBr.,No.14319cv,at3846;seealsoJ.A.,No.14319cvat
136574,16991715(affidavitsofchiefsofpoliceopiningthatassaultweapons
maynotbewellsuitedforselfdefense,especiallyinanurbanenvironment);J.A.,
No.14319cv,at13951413.
63
Plaintiffstakeissuewiththeresearchmethodology,andpointto
studiesunderminingtheconclusionofdisproportionateuse.SeePlaintiffsReply
Br.,No.1436cv,at1517;seealsoJ.A.,No.1436cv,at46465,48990.
64
26
accountfor71percentto83percentofthefirearmsusedinmurders
constitutionalprotection.
civilians.Hellerexpresslyhighlightedweaponsthataremostuseful
10
11
12
13
14
15
SecondAmendmentpurposes.ButtheSupremeCourtsverychoice
16
17
imply that such guns are traditionally have been widely accepted
18
aslawful.68
PlaintiffsReplyBr.,No.1436cv,at1518;seealsoHeller,554U.S.at698
(Breyer,J.,dissenting)(discussingsimilarstatisticssuggestingthathandguns
appeartobeaverypopularweaponamongcriminals).
65
554U.S.at627(internalquotationmarksomitted).
66
Staplesv.UnitedStates,511U.S.600,603(1994).
67
Id.at612.
68
27
typicallypossessedbylawabidingcitizensforlawfulpurposes.69
Confrontingthisrecord,ChiefJudgeSkretnyreasonablyfoundthat
reliableempiricalevidenceoflawfulpossessionforlawfulpurposes
waselusive,70beyondownershipstatistics.71Weagree.
IntheabsenceofclearerguidancefromtheSupremeCourtor
strongerevidenceintherecord,wefollowtheapproachtakenbythe
10
District Courts and by the D.C. Circuit in Heller II and assume for
11
12
magazinesarealsotypicallypossessedbylawabidingcitizensfor
13
14
theselawsbanweaponsprotectedbytheSecondAmendment.This
15
16
17
constitutionalmuster.73
Heller,554U.S.at625.
69
NYSRPA,990F.Supp.2dat365.
70
Onasubstantiallysimilarrecord,JudgeCovellooftheDistrictof
Connecticutcametothesameconclusion,findingonlythattherelevantweapons
werepresumably[]usedforlawfulpurposes.Shew,994F.Supp.2dat246
(emphasissupplied).
71
SeeHellerII,670F.3dat126061(quotingHeller,554U.S.at625).
72
Thoughweassumewithoutdecidingthatthebulkofthechallenged
legislationisentitledtoSecondAmendmentprotection,wedecideasmuchwith
73
28
d. SecondStep:LevelofScrutiny
respecttoConnecticutsprohibitionoftheRemingtonTactical7615,anon
semiautomaticpumpactionrifle.SeeDefendantsBr.,No.14319cv,at58.
HelleremphasizesthatthetheSecondAmendmentextends,primafacie,
toallinstrumentsthatconstitutebearablearms.Heller,554U.S.at582.Inother
words,itidentifiesapresumptioninfavorofSecondAmendmentprotection,
whichtheStatebearstheinitialburdenofrebutting.SeeEzell,651F.3dat70203
([I]fthegovernmentcanestablishthatachallengedfirearmslawregulatesactivity
fallingoutsidethescopeoftheSecondAmendment...thentheanalysiscanstop
there....(emphasissupplied));cf.Virginiav.Black,538U.S.343,369(2003)
(Scalia,J.,concurringinpart,concurringinthejudgmentinpart,anddissenting
inpart)(definingprimafacieevidenceasthatwhich,ifunexplainedor
uncontradicted,issufficienttosustainajudgmentinfavoroftheissuewhichit
supports(quotingBlacksLawDictionary1190(6thed.1990)).BecausetheState,
focusedonsemiautomaticweapons,seepostnote112,hasfailedtomakeany
argumentthatthispumpactionrifleisdangerous,unusual,orotherwisenot
withintheambitofSecondAmendmentprotection,thepresumptionthatthe
Amendmentappliesremainsunrebutted.
Tobesure,Helleralsonotedthatcertainpresumptivelylawful
regulatorymeasuresostensiblyfalloutsideoftheSecondAmendmentsprima
facieprotections.Id.at627n.26.Nonetheless,liketheD.C.CircuitinHellerII,we
concludethattheseparticularrestrictionsarenotentitledtoapresumptionof
validity.HellerII,670F.3dat1260(emphasissupplied).
WeemphasizethatourholdingwithrespecttotheRemington7615at
bothstepsofouranalysisreflectstheStatesfailuretopresentanyargumentat
allregardingthisweaponorotherslikeit.Wedonotforeclosethepossibility
thatstatescouldinthefuturepresentevidencetosupportsuchaprohibition.
Plaintiffsefforttoavoidthetwostepframeworklaidouthereis
unavailing.Theyarguethattheapplicationofmeansendsscrutinyinthiscase
74
29
scrutinyanalysisintroducedinthefamousFootnoteFourofUnited
judicialscrutinyapplies.
wouldbeanexerciseinfutility.PlaintiffsBr.,No.1436cv,at13(quoting
Kachalsky,701F.3dat89n.9);PlaintiffsBr.,No.14319cv,at12(same).Wereject
thatargument.Asplaintiffsthemselvesconcede,thisCourtmadeveryclearin
KachalskythatHellersreluctancetoannounceastandardofreviewshouldnot
beinterpretedasasignalthatcourtsmustlooksolelytothetext,history,and
traditionoftheSecondAmendmenttodeterminewhetherastatecanlimitthe
rightwithoutapplyinganysortofmeansendscrutiny.701F.3dat89n.9.On
thecontrary,Hellerindicatedthatthetypicalstandardsofscrutinyanalysis
shouldapplytoregulationsimpinginguponSecondAmendmentrights,butthat
D.C.shandgunbanwouldfail[u]nderanyofthestandardsofscrutiny.554
U.S.at628.
304U.S.144,152n.4(1938);seeHeller,554U.S.at628n.27.
75
554U.S.at628n.27.Atthesametime,Hellersapprovalofcertain
presumptivelylawfulregulatorymeasures,id.at627n.26,hasbeenconstrued
bysometoruleoutstrictscrutinyaswell.Indeed,JusticeBreyersdissentstates,
withoutoppositionfromtheCourtsopinion,thatthemajorityimplicitly,and
appropriately,reject[ed]th[e]suggestion[toapplystrictscrutinytogun
regulations]bybroadlyapprovingasetoflaws...whoseconstitutionalityunder
astrictscrutinystandardwouldbefarfromclear.Id.at688(Breyer,J.,
dissenting).ChiefJudgeSkretnycitedthisinterpretationwithapprobation.
NYSRPA,990F.Supp.2dat366.Uponcloserinspection,however,wethinkit
likelythattheHellermajorityidentifiedthesepresumptivelylawfulmeasures
inanattempttoclarifythescopeoftheSecondAmendmentsreachinthefirst
placethefirststepofourframeworkbutnottointimateaviewastowhether
strictscrutinyappliesinthesecondstep.
76
30
Atthesametime,thisCourtandoursisterCircuitshavesuggested
how close the law comes to the core of the Second Amendment
rightand(2)theseverityofthelawsburdenontheright.77Laws
heightenedscrutiny.
i. TheCoreoftheRight
10
11
12
where the need for defense of self, family and property is most
13
14
15
andtheircompleteprohibition,includingwithinthehome,requires
16
ustoconsiderthescopeofSecondAmendmentguaranteesattheir
17
zenith.79Atthesametime,theregulatedweaponsarenotnearlyas
18
SeeEzell,651F.3dat703.
77
Heller,554U.S.at628.Thisconclusionispredicatedonourearlier
assumptionthatthecommonlyusedfirearmsatissuearealsotypicallyusedfor
selfdefenseorotherlawfulpurposes,andthustheprohibitionsimplicatethe
SecondAmendmentright.SeeanteV.c.ii.
78
Kachalsky,701F.3dat89.
79
31
quintessentialselfdefenseweapon.80Thusthesestatutesimplicate
SecondAmendmentrights,butnottothesameextentasthelawsat
issueinHellerandMcDonald.
ii. TheSeverityoftheBurden
applytoanymarginal,incrementalorevenappreciablerestrainton
10
11
12
13
14
imposeasubstantialburdenonSecondAmendmentrights.83
15
Thepracticeofapplyingheightenedscrutinyonlytolawsthat
16
burdentheSecondAmendmentrightsubstantiallyis,aswenoted
17
18
19
Heller,554U.S.at629.
80
Decastro,682F.3dat166.
81
Id.(emphasissupplied).
82
701F.3dat93.
83
Decastro,682F.3dat16667(emphasissupplied).
84
32
thresholdshowingtotriggerheightenedscrutinyoflawsallegedto
freespeech.85Thoughwehavehistoricallyexpressedhesitan[ce]to
SecondAmendmentjurisprudence,86wereadilyconsultprinciples
Amendmentindeterminingwhetheralawsubstantiallyburdens
SecondAmendmentrights.87
10
11
12
13
14
firearmforselfdefense.89
15
16
Id.
85
Kachalsky,701F.3dat91(emphasisinoriginal).
86
Decastro,682F.3dat167.
87
UnitedStatesv.Chester,628F.3d673,682(4thCir.2010).
88
Decastro,682F.3dat168;seealsoHellerII,670F.3dat1262(drawingthe
comparisontoFirstAmendmentspeechrestrictions,wherebysevereburdens
thatdontleaveopenamplealternativechannelstriggerstrictscrutiny,while
restrictionsthatleaveopenamplealternativechannelsaremerelymodest
burdensandrequireonlyamildformofintermediatescrutiny).
89
33
outrightbanstatewide.90Theabsoluteprohibitioninstitutedinboth
incrementalorevenappreciablerestraint[s]ontherighttokeepand
formofheightenedscrutiny.
10
11
particularlywhenthatburdendoesnotconstraintheAmendments
12
13
D.C.sunconstitutionalprohibitionofanentireclassofarmsthat
14
15
16
Chovan,735F.3dat1138.
90
Ezell,651F.3dat705,708.
91
Decastro,682F.3dat166.Thelegislationatissueisthuseasily
distinguishedfromaNewYorkstatuteimposingagunlicensingfeeof$100per
year,whichwefoundtobenomorethanamarginal,incrementaloreven
appreciablerestraintonSecondAmendmentrights.Kwongv.Bloomberg,723
F.3d160,167(2dCir.2013).TheregulationinKwonginvolvedneitherthe
outrightprohibitionofweaponsincommonusenoranydirectlimitationonthe
exerciseofSecondAmendmentrightswithinthehome.
92
Kachalsky,701F.3dat93.
93
Heller,554U.S.at628.
94
34
banonlyalimitedsubsetofsemiautomaticfirearms,whichcontain
plain,thefactthatthestatutesatissuedonotbananentireclassof
10
11
12
notcontainanyoftheenumeratedmilitarystylefeatures.Similarly,
13
14
purchaseanynumberofmagazineswithacapacityoftenorfewer
15
16
PlaintiffsBr.,No.1436cv,at17;PlaintiffsBr.,No.14319cv,at16.
95
PlaintiffsBr.,No.14319cv,at31.
96
See554U.S.at628.
97
Decastro,682F.3dat168.Plaintiffsrelatedargumentthatthe
availabilityofunbannedfirearmsisirrelevantunderHeller,seePlaintiffsBr.,
No.1436cv,at32restsonamisapprehensionoftheSupremeCourtslogic.To
besure,Hellerdidindicatethat[i]tisnoanswertosay...thatitispermissible
tobanthepossessionofhandgunssolongasthepossessionofotherfirearms
(i.e.,longguns)isallowed.554U.S.at629.ButHellerwentontoexplainthat
handgunsareprotectedasthemostpopularweaponchosenbyAmericansfor
selfdefenseinthehome.Id.Ofcourse,thesamecannotbesaidoftheweapons
atissuehere.Hellerexplicitlyendorsedprohibitionsagainstanyweaponsnot
98
35
D.C.Circuitthattheprohibitionofsemiautomaticriflesandlarge
substantiallyaffecttheirabilitytodefendthemselves.99Theburden
imposedbythechallengedlegislationisreal,butitisnotsevere.100
Accordingly,weconcludethatintermediate,ratherthanstrict,
10
implicatingtheSecondAmendment.101
11
e. ApplicationofIntermediateScrutiny
12
13
14
typicallypossessedbylawabidingcitizensforlawfulpurposes,including,for
example,shortbarreledshotguns.Id.at625.Ourconsiderationofavailable
alternativesforselfdefensethussquareswithHellersfocusonprotectingthat
corelawfulpurposeoftheSecondAmendmentright.Id.at630.
HellerII,670F.3dat1262.
99
Seeid.
100
See,e.g.,Chovan,735F.3dat1138;NatlRifleAssnofAm.,700F.3dat
207;Chester,628F.3dat683;Reese,627F.3dat802;Marzzarella,614F.3dat97.
101
ErnstJ.v.Stone,452F.3d186,200n.10(2dCir.2006)(notingthat
intermediatescrutinycarriesdifferentmeaningsdependingontheareaoflawin
whichitarises,andthenapplyingthesamedefinitionofintermediatescrutiny
usedhere).
102
36
achievementofanimportantgovernmentalinterest.103Itisbeyond
governmentalinterestsinpublicsafetyandcrimeprevention.104We
interest.Weconcludethattheprohibitionsonsemiautomaticassault
weaponsandlargecapacitymagazinesmeetthisstandard.
i. ProhibitiononAssaultWeapons
10
11
12
13
14
interest.106Moreover,wehaveobservedthatstateregulationofthe
15
right to bear arms has always been more robust than analogous
16
regulationofotherconstitutionalrights.107Solongasthedefendants
Kachalsky,701F.3dat96.
103
Id.at97;seealsoSchallv.Martin,467U.S.253,264(1984)(The
legitimateandcompellingstateinterestinprotectingthecommunityfromcrime
cannotbedoubted.(internalquotationmarksomitted)).
104
Kachalsky,701F.3dat97(internalquotationmarksomitted).
105
Id.
106
Id.at100.Statesarepermittedtorestricttherighttobeararmsby
felonsandthementallyill,whileequivalentrestrictionsontherighttospeechor
religiousfreedomsamongthosepopulationswouldunquestionablybe
unconstitutional.Id.
107
37
willpassconstitutionalmuster.108
10
11
Connecticuthavedrawnreasonableinferencesbasedonsubstantial
12
evidence.111
13
Bothstateshavedonesowithrespecttotheirprohibitionson
14
certainsemiautomaticfirearms.112Atleastsincetheenactmentofthe
CityofLosAngelesv.AlamedaBooks,Inc.,535U.S.425,438(2002)
(plurality).
108
Kachalsky,701F.3dat97(quotingTurnerBroad.Sys.,Inc.v.Fed.
CommcnsCommn,520U.S.180,195(1997)(bracketsomitted)).
109
Kachalsky,701F.3dat97(quotingTurnerBroad.Sys.,Inc.v.Fed.
CommcnsCommn,512U.S.622,665(1994))(opinionofKennedy,J.)).
110
TurnerBroad.Sys.,520U.S.at195.
111
ThoughConnecticutsbanonsemiautomaticfirearmspasses
intermediatescrutiny,itsprohibitionofasinglenonsemiautomaticweapon,the
Remington7615,doesnot.Focusedasitwasontherationaleforbanning
semiautomaticweapons,Connecticutfailstosetforththerequisitesubstantial
evidencewithrespecttothepumpactionRemington7615.Id.at195;seealso
112
38
beenunderstoodtoposeunusualrisks.Whenused,theseweapons
tendtoresultinmorenumerouswounds,moreseriouswounds,and
crime,andparticularlyincriminalmassshootingsliketheattackin
enforcementofficers:onestudyshowsthatbetween1998and2001,
assaultweaponswereusedtogundownatleasttwentypercentof
officerskilledinthelineofduty.115
10
11
legislationatissuetoaddresstheseparticularlyhazardousweapons.
12
Thedangersposedbysomeofthemilitarystylefeaturesprohibited
13
14
antenote73.Accordingly,weholdthatthissingularprovisionofConnecticuts
legislationisunconstitutional.
SeeDefendantsBr.,No.1436cv,at48(quotingJ.A.,No.1436cv,at
113
73334).
Seeid.at49(citingJ.A.,No.1436cv565,727,729).
114
SeeJ.A.,No.1436cv,at1261(citingViolencePolicyCenterstudy).
115
Indeed,plaintiffshavenotseriouslyattemptedtoargueeitherhereor
beforetheDistrictCourtthatsuchfeaturesareprotectedbytheSecond
Amendmentatall,muchlessthattheirprohibitionshouldfailintermediate
scrutiny.SeeNYSRPA,990F.Supp.2dat36970(Plaintiffsdonotexplicitly
arguethattheActsregulationoffirearmswith[grenadelaunchers,bayonet
mounts,orsilencers]violatestheSecondAmendment.);cf.Nortonv.SamsClub,
145F.3d114,119(2dCir.1998)(Issuesnotsufficientlyarguedinthebriefsare
consideredwaivedandnormallywillnotbeaddressedonappeal.);United
116
39
determined, as did the U.S. Congress, that the net effect of these
militarycombatfeaturesisacapabilityforlethalitymorewounds,
moreserious,inmorevictimsfarbeyondthatofotherfirearmsin
10
featuresmaketheweaponsmoredeadly.119
11
12
13
14
shootingsareparticularlyrareeventsandthus,evenifsuccessful,
15
Statesv.Amer,110F.3d873,879(2dCir.1997)(findingthatdefendantforfeited
oneofhisconstitutionalargumentsbyfailingtoraiseitbeforetheDistrictCourt).
J.A.,No.1436cv,at73334.
117
PlaintiffsBr.,No.1436cv,at20;PlaintiffsBr.,No.14319cv,at1920.
118
NYSRPA,990F.Supp.2dat368.
119
40
crime.120Thatmaybeso.Butguncontrollegislationneednotstrike
atallevilsatthesametimetobeconstitutional.121
citizens and will thus impair the very publicsafety objectives they
weredesignedtoachieve.123Giventhedearthofevidencethatlaw
abidingcitizenstypicallyusetheseweaponsforselfdefense,seeante
10
11
certainlynotstrongenoughtoovercomethesubstantialdeference
12
13
14
intentonbreakingthelawwillindeedignorethesestatutesdoesnot
15
makethemunconstitutional.
PlaintiffsBr.,No.1436cv,at4849;PlaintiffsBr.,No.14319cv,at48
120
49.
NatlRifleAssnofAm.,700F.3dat211(quotingBuckleyv.Valeo,424
U.S.1,105(1976)).
121
SeeDefendantsBr.,No.14319cv,at7175(citing,interalia,research
byProf.ChristopherS.Koper,evaluatingtheimpactofthefederalassault
weaponsban,J.A.,No.14319cv,at1404).
122
PlaintiffsBr.,No.1436cv,at4546;PlaintiffsBr.,No.14319cv,at45
123
46.
Kachalsky,701F.3dat97(quotingTurnerBroad.Sys.,520U.S.at195
(bracketsomitted)).
124
41
prohibitionofsemiautomaticassaultweaponspassesthistest.126
ii. ProhibitiononLargeCapacityMagazines
capacitymagazinesmaypresentevengreaterdangerstocrimeand
10
violencethanassaultweaponsalone,inpartbecausetheyaremore
11
prevalentandcanbeandareused...inbothassaultweaponsand
12
nonassault
13
weapons.128
Largecapacity
magazines
are
Id.at99.
125
Cf.HellerII,670F.3dat1263([T]heevidencedemonstratesabanon
assaultweaponsislikelytopromotetheGovernmentsinterestincrime
control....).Again,ourholdingislimitedinsofarasitdoesnotapplyto
ConnecticutsprohibitionofthenonsemiautomaticRemington7615.
126
Amiciarguethatlargecapacitymagazinesareentirelyoutsideof
SecondAmendmentprotectionfortheindependentreasonthatsuchmagazines
constitutefirearmaccessoriesratherthanprotectedarms.SeeBr.ofAmici
CuriaeLawCenterToPreventGunViolenceandNewYorkersAgainstGun
Violence,No.1436cv,at813;Br.ofAmiciCuriaeLawCenterToPreventGun
Violence,ConnecticutAgainstGunViolence,andClevelandSchoolRemembers,
No.14319cv,at1014.Becauseweconcludethattheprohibitionoflarge
capacitymagazineswouldsurvivetherequisitescrutiny,weneednotreachthe
meritsofthisadditionalargument.
127
J.A.,No.14319cv,at1400.
128
42
magazinestofire154roundsinlessthanfiveminutes.129Likeassault
uponbyallpartiesinbothstates,statedthatitisparticularlythe
preventandlimitshootingsinthestateoverthelongrun.131
10
11
12
13
14
intermediatescrutiny.
15
iii. SevenRoundLoadLimit
16
Thoughthekeyprovisionsofbothstatutespassconstitutional
17
musteronthisrecord,anotheraspectofNewYorksSAFEActdoes
18
DefendantsBr.,No.14319cv,at11,3839.
129
HellerII,670F.3dat1263(internalquotationmarksomitted);seealso
DefendantsBr.,No.1436cv,at5960.
130
J.A.,No.14319cv,at1410.
131
43
suchdevicecontainsmorethansevenroundsofammunition.132
Asnotedabove,thesevenroundloadlimitwasasecondbest
sevenroundsorfewercanbesafelypossessed,butitalsorecognized
thatsevenroundmagazinesaredifficulttoobtaincommercially.Its
compromisewastopermitgunownerstousetenroundmagazines
iftheywereloadedwithsevenorfewerrounds.133
10
11
12
capacityrestriction,butratheraloadlimit.NothingintheSAFEAct
13
14
15
frustratetheaccessofthosewhointendtousetenroundmagazines
16
17
fromthestatedrationaleofreducingthenumberofassaultweapons
18
andlargecapacitymagazinesincirculation.134NewYorkhasfailed
19
to present evidence that the mere existence of this load limit will
20
21
holdingtenroundswithonlythepermissibleseven.
N.Y.PenalLaw265.37;seeantenotes1213andaccompanyingtext.
132
SeeDefendantsBr.,No.1436cv,at1516.
133
Seeid.at55.
134
44
substantiallyrelatedtothegovernmentalinterest.136Withrespectto
theloadlimitprovisionalone,NewYorkhasfailedtodoso.
VI.
VaguenessChallenge
10
WeturnnowtoplaintiffssecondchallengetotheNewYork
11
12
13
appealChiefJudgeSkretnysrulingthattwoprovisionsoftheSAFE
14
Actarevoidbecauseofvagueness.
15
a. LegalStandards
16
17
18
19
AlamedaBooks,535U.S.at438.
135
TurnerBroad.Sys.,520U.S.at195(emphasissupplied).
136
Crampv.Bd.ofPub.Instruction,368U.S.278,287(1961);seealsoCunney
v.Bd.ofTrusteesofVill.ofGrandView,N.Y.,660F.3d612,620(2dCir.2011).
137
45
criminaloffensewithsufficientdefinitenessthatordinarypeoplecan
notencouragearbitraryanddiscriminatoryenforcement.138Statutes
markedbyadegreeofimprecision.140
10
11
12
13
14
15
Kolenderv.Lawson,461U.S.352,357(1983).
138
Vill.ofHoffmanEstatesv.TheFlipside,HoffmanEstates,Inc.,455U.S.489,
49899(1982).
139
Thibodeauv.Portuondo,486F.3d61,66(2dCir.2007)(quotingGrayned
v.CityofRockford,408U.S.104,110(1972)).
140
SeeRichmondBoroGunClub,Inc.v.CityofNewYork,97F.3d681,68586
(2dCir.1996).
141
46
enactmentisthemostdifficultchallengetomountsuccessfully.143
Seekingtoavoidthisprohibitivelyhighbar,plaintiffsurgeus
CourttookinCityofChicagov.Morales.144Inthatcase,threeJustices
burdeningaconstitutionalrightissubjecttofacialattack[w]hen
vaguenesspermeatesthetextofsuchalaw.145ThisCourt,however,
has determined that, because the test set forth by the Morales
10
pluralityhasnotbeenadoptedbytheSupremeCourtasawhole,we
11
12
13
becausethechallengedprovisionsaresufficientlycleartosurvivea
14
facialchallengeundereitherapproach.
15
16
481U.S.739,745(1987)(emphasissupplied).
142
Id.
143
527U.S.41(1999);seealsoPlaintiffsBr.,No.14319cv,at5254;
PlaintiffsBr.,No.1436cv,at5256.
144
527U.S.at55.
145
UnitedStatesv.Rybicki,354F.3d124,13132(2dCir.2003)(enbanc).
146
Id.at132n.3.
147
47
b. Application
i. Canbereadilyrestoredorconvertedtoaccept
plaintiffsallegethatthephraseisunconstitutionallyvaguebecause
whetheramagazinecanbereadilyrestoredorconverteddepends
restorer,andthestatutesaresilentonthesedetails.149
10
11
assaultweaponsbanandlaterappearedinNewYorks2000law.As
12
13
given rise to confusion at any time in the past two decades.150 This
14
Courtfoundasimilarphraseinanothergunlawmayreadilybe
15
16
N.Y.PenalLaw265.00(23),265.02(8),265.36;Conn.Gen.Stat.53
202w(a)(1).
148
PlaintiffsBr.,No.1436cv,at5859;PlaintiffsBr.,No.14319cv,at58
149
60.
NYSRPA,990F.Supp.2dat376.
150
U.S.v.16,179MolsoItalian.22CaliberWinleeDerringerConvertibleStarter
Guns,443F.2d463,46465(2dCir.1971)(rejectingavaguenesschallengeina
civilforfeiturecontext,andfindingthatthephraseclearlymeantagunwhich
canbeconvertedbyarelativelysimpleoperationtakingonlyafewminutes).
151
48
themodifierreadilyisinapposite.152
magazinethatonlyagunsmithequippedwithtechnicalknowledge
Shouldsuchaprosecutioneveroccur,thedefendantcouldbringan
asappliedvaguenesschallenge,groundedinthefactsandcontext
10
11
tobringhere.
In sum, we affirm the judgments of both District Courts
12
13
findingthatthisphraseisnotunconstitutionallyvague.
14
ii. CapacityofTubularMagazines
15
16
17
magazines,thecapacityofwhichvariesaccordingtothesizeofthe
18
19
matter for the reasons stated by the District Court: the provision is
PlaintiffsBr.,No.1436cv,at58;PlaintiffsBr.,No.14319cv,at5859;
seePeoplesRightsOrg.,Inc.v.CityofColumbus,152F.3d522,537(6thCir.1998).
152
SeePlaintiffsBr.,No.1436cv,at5859;PlaintiffsBr.,No.14319cv,at
153
5859.
N.Y.PenalLaw265.00(23).
154
49
Moralesplurality).Moreover,likethereadilyconvertedlanguage,
duringtheensuingdecades.
iii. CopiesorDuplicates
10
assaultweapontoincludecertainspecifiedfirearmsandanycopies
11
12
13
firearmsinparticularareprohibited.
14
Wereviewthestatutorylanguagewithinitscontext,relyingif
15
16
history.156Inthecontextofthelegislationasawhole,thiscopiesor
17
18
thatthestatuteprohibitsbymodelnamealsoexhibitatleastoneof
19
theprohibitedmilitarystylefeatures.157Hence,thestatuteprovides
Conn.Gen.Stat.53202a(1)(B)(D).
155
CommackSelfServiceKosherMeats,Inc.v.Hooker,680F.3d194,213(2d
Cir.2012).
156
TheConnecticutlegislationprohibitedonlyasinglefirearm,the
Remington7615,whichlackedmilitarystylefeatures.Becausewehavealready
heldthatConnecticutsbanontheRemington7615isunconstitutional,seeante
157
50
and,ifstillconcernedthatthefirearmmaybeanunlawfulcopyor
stylefeatures.
deficiencyofanassaultweaponsbanstruckdownbyasisterCircuit
Columbus.158InSpringfield,themunicipalordinanceatissuedefined
10
11
12
13
thattheordinancewasinvalidbecauseitoutlaw[ed]certainbrand
14
15
weaponsofthesametype,functionorcapability[and]...without
16
17
firearms].159TheSixthCircuitfounditsignificantthattheordinance
18
offerednoexplanationfordraftingtheordinanceintermsofbrand
19
20
notes73and112,plaintiffschallengetothecopiesorduplicatesprovisionis
mootregardingcopiesorduplicatesoftheRemington7615itself.
29F.3d250,252(6thCir.1994).
158
Id.
159
Id.
160
51
itemizedlistofprohibitedmodelsbutalsothemilitarystylefeatures
categoryofweaponoutlawed.
sufficientlydefinitetosurviveavoidforvaguenesschallenge.
iv. Version
10
11
12
13
anysinglesemiautomaticpistolisaversionofanautomaticone.162
14
The District Court also expressed concern that the lack of criteria
15
mightencouragearbitraryanddiscriminatoryenforcement.163
16
17
18
19
judicialdecisions,andpublishedbooks.164Plaintiffshaveshownno
N.Y.PenalLaw265.00(22)(c)(viii).
161
NYSRPA,990F.Supp.2dat377.
162
Id.
163
DefendantsBr.,No.1436cv,at8183.
164
52
additionalnoticeofprohibitedconductbyrequiringthecreationofa
10
11
12
challenge.Wecannotconclude,however,thattheprovisionisvague
13
14
thereforereversesomuchoftheDistrictCourtsjudgmentasholds
15
NewYorkPenalLaw265.00(22)(c)(viii)voidbecauseofvagueness.
16
v. MuzzleBreak
17
18
impermissiblyvagueaprovisionofNewYorksSAFEActthatlisted
19
20
21
threadedbarreldesignedtoaccommodateaflashsuppressor,muzzle
N.Y.PenalLaw400.00(16a)(b).TheNewYorkStatePolicealso
maintainsatelephonelinetoanswerthequestionsofgunowners.See
DefendantsReplyBr.,No.1436cv,at26.
165
53
SAFEActmisspelledthetermasmuzzlebreak.Onthebasisofthis
breakstobeunconstitutionallyvague,reasoningthatanordinary
forbids.167
Thisis,inourview,anoverstatement.Becausethemisspelled
10
11
Further,itsplacementwithinalistofmuzzleattachmentsmakesthe
12
13
adjacentstatutorytermmuzzlecompensatorissynonymouswith
14
15
16
doctrinerequiresonlythatthestatuteprovidesufficientlydefinite
17
18
19
Accordingly,wereversesomuchoftheDistrictCourtsjudgmentas
20
21
vague.
N.Y.PenalLaw265.00(22)(a)(vi)(emphasissupplied).
166
NYSRPA,990F.Supp.2dat377(quotingCunney,660F.3dat620).
167
UnitedStatesv.Farhane,634F.3d127,139(2dCir.2011)(internal
quotationmarksomitted).
168
54
1
2
3
CONCLUSION
Tosummarize,weholdasfollows:
(1)
ThecoreprohibitionsbyNewYorkandConnecticutof
violatetheSecondAmendment.
(a)
10
11
12
13
interest.
14
(b)
Becausetheprohibitionsaresubstantiallyrelated
15
totheimportantgovernmentalinterestsofpublic
16
safety
17
constitutionalmuster.
and
crime
reduction,
they
pass
18
19
judgmentsoftheWesternDistrictofNewYorkandthe
20
21
constitutionalityofstateprohibitionsonsemiautomatic
22
assaultweaponsandlargecapacitymagazines.
23
24
(2)
55
7615,inthatitmerelyreflectsthepresumptionrequired
10
argumentatallregardingthisweaponorotherslikeit,
11
12
13
presentevidencetosupportsuchaprohibition.
14
(3)
15
intermediatescrutinyintheabsenceofrequisiterecord
16
17
statutoryprovisionandimportantstatesafetyinterests.
18
19
20
unconstitutional.
21
(4)
22
unconstitutionallyvague.Accordingly,weAFFIRMthe
23
24
25
26
56
converted.WeREVERSEthejudgmentoftheWestern
unconstitutionallyvague.
57