Lane v. Rocah

OPINION & ORDER Plaintiffs J. Mark Lane and James Spears bring this Action against Miriam E. Rocah (“Rocah”), in her official capacity as District Attorney for Westchester County, and Dominick Chiumento (“Chiumento”; collectively, “Defendants”), in his capacity as Acting Superintendent of the New York State Police. (See generally Compl. (Dkt. No. 1).)¹ Plaintiffs allege that New York’s ban on assault weapons (the “Assault Weapons Ban”) violates their Second Amendment rights as incorporated against New York State by the Fourteenth Amendment. (Compl. 65 (citing N.Y. Penal Law §§265.00(22)(a)-(f), 265.02(7), 265.10, 70.02).) Before the Court are Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(1) Motions To Dismiss. (Rocah Not. of Mot. (Dkt. No. 37); Chiumento Not. of Mot. (Dkt. No. 40).) For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motions are denied. I. Background This case arises out of relatively simple facts. Plaintiffs claim that they intend to purchase specific models of assault weapons, but New York has long prohibited their possession. Plaintiffs believe that law is unconstitutional given the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022).² As a threshold issue, Defendants contend that Plaintiffs’ “intentions” are just that — some-day aspirations that do not give rise to a concrete and imminent injury sufficient to confer standing. The relevant facts are few, and they are drawn from the Complaint. A. The Assault Weapons Ban New York has long criminalized the possession of “assault weapons.” See N.Y. Penal Law §265.02(7). Assault weapons are a subset of semiautomatic weapons — firearms that use each pull of the trigger to help load the next round — that are fitted to “accept a detachable magazine” and have one or more “military-style features.” See id. §§265.00(21), 265.00(22)(a)-(c); see Cuomo, 804 F.3d at 249 (characterizing definitions). Those features include “a folding or telescoping stock,” “a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon,” certain muzzle devices, or even “a grenade launcher.” N.Y. Penal Law §265.00(22)(a)(i)-(ii), (vi)-(vii). The statute contains various other provisions including a grandfather clause, see id. §265.00(22)(g)(v), but they are not relevant here. B. Factual Background Plaintiffs are two Westchester residents who claim they intend to keep and bear assault weapons for various purposes, including home defense and target shooting. (Compl.

39-40.) Lane, if allowed, would purchase a Springfield Armory Saint rifle, an AR-15 style gun fitted to accept a detachable magazine, with a telescoping stock, pistol grip, and muzzle device. (Id. 39.) And Sears, if allowed, would purchase a LMT MARS-L 5.56 rifle, another AR-15 style gun with the same characteristics. (See id. 40.) Plaintiffs allege that AR-15 style weapons are in common use throughout the country, citing various surveys and gun-sale statistics, (id.