Filed April 29, 2016
Matter of Zedek, 2012 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 4834, at *5; see Nivar, 30 Misc. 3d at 960; see also Kachalsky, 701 F.3d at 86-87, 101 (upholding the constitutionality of the “proper cause” requirement, and noting that there is “a substantial body of law instructing licensing officials on the application of this standard”).27 27 This sort of “repeated use for decades, without evidence of mischief or misunderstanding . . . suggests that the language is comprehensible.” NYSRPA, 804 F.3d at 268. Case 1:15-cv-00654-FPG Document 26 Filed 04/29/16 Page 48 of 58 36 Nor does the discretion provided to firearms licensing officers raise a vagueness issue here. The exercise of some degree of judgment on the part of law enforcement is expected, and constitutionally unproblematic.
Filed January 10, 2017
More specifically, if a government action leaves “‘adequate alternatives . . . for law-abiding citizens to acquire a firearm for self-defense,’” no substantial burden on Second Amendment rights exists and any Second Amendment challenge to the regulation must fail. NYSRPA, 804 F.3d at 259 (quoting DeCastro, 682 F.3d at 168). Importantly, the plaintiffs here only contend that the Enforcement Notice itself violates the Second Amendment; they do not contend that the Massachusetts Assault Weapons Ban violates the Second Amendment.
Filed November 22, 2016
More specifically, if a government action leaves “‘adequate alternatives . . . for law-abiding citizens to acquire a firearm for self-defense,’” no substantial burden on Second Amendment rights exists and any Second Amendment challenge to the regulation must fail. NYSRPA, 804 F.3d at 259 (quoting DeCastro, 682 F.3d at 168). Importantly, the plaintiffs here only contend that the Enforcement Notice itself violates the Second Amendment; they do not contend that the Massachusetts Assault Weapons Ban violates the Second Amendment.
Filed June 24, 2016
at 28); see, e.g., Kachalsky, 701 F.3d at 96; Aron v. Becker, 48 F. Supp. 3d 347, 371 (N.D.N.Y. 2014). Most recently, in NYSRPA v. Cuomo, 804 F.3d 242 (2d Cir. 2015), cert. denied, 2016 U.S. LEXIS 3959 (June 20, 2016) (No. 15-130), the Second Circuit rejected the application of strict scrutiny, and instead applied intermediate scrutiny, to laws that, quite unlike the licensing scheme at issue here, “impose an outright ban” on particular weapons, “including within the home.”