N.Y. State Firearms Ass'n v. James

No. 24-1290-cv (2d Cir. Oct. 15, 2025) · United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · October 15, 2025 · No. 24-1290-cv

Summary

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction challenging New York’s ammunition background-check, fee, and seller-registration provisions under the Second Amendment. The court held that the individual plaintiffs had standing but had not shown that the provisions meaningfully constrained their ability to keep or bear arms under the first step of the Bruen framework. The court therefore did not reach the district court’s historical-tradition analysis and remanded for further proceedings.

Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Writing for the Court
Joseph F. Bianco; Richard C. Park; Michael H. Park; J. Nardacci
Jurisdiction
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Decision date
October 15, 2025
Docket number
24-1290-cv
Procedural posture
Plaintiffs appealed the denial of their motion for a preliminary injunction against enforcement of New York's ammunition background-check, fee, and registration provisions under the Concealed Carry Improvement Act.
Standard of review
Denial of a preliminary injunction is reviewed for abuse of discretion, identified only when the decision rests on an error of law, a clearly erroneous factual finding, or falls outside the range of permissible decisions. The likelihood-of-success requirement is more rigorous when the injunction would affect government action taken in the public interest pursuant to a statutory or regulatory scheme.
Precedential value
Published and precedential
Parties
New York State Firearms Association, George Borrello, David DiPietro, William Ortman, Aaron Dorr v. Steven G. James, in his official capacity as Superintendent of the New York State Police
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

second amendmentappellate procedureappellate jurisdictionremediessection 1983

Practice areas

constitutional lawcivil rightsappellate procedurepreliminary injunctionsfirearms regulation

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the individual plaintiffs had standing to challenge the CCIA ammunition background-check, fee, and registration provisions.
  2. Whether the challenged provisions meaningfully constrained the individual plaintiffs' ability to keep or bear arms under the first step of the Bruen framework.
  3. Whether the denial of a preliminary injunction should be affirmed despite the Second Circuit relying on a different legal ground than the district court.

Holdings

  1. The individual plaintiffs established standing because they alleged concrete and imminent deterrence or denial of ammunition purchases or sales, the injuries were traceable to enforcement of the challenged provisions, and the requested injunction would redress the injuries.
  2. On the record presented, the ammunition background-check provisions did not meaningfully constrain the plaintiffs' ability to keep or bear arms and therefore did not implicate the plain text of the Second Amendment.
  3. The short delays shown in the record, including a delay of at most one day experienced by Dorr, did not meaningfully constrain the plaintiffs' Second Amendment rights.
  4. The $2.50 fee imposed on ammunition sellers did not meaningfully constrain purchasers' Second Amendment rights on this record.
  5. The licensing and registration provisions did not implicate the Second Amendment because the Second Amendment does not independently protect a right to sell firearms or ammunition without registration or licensing, and plaintiffs failed to show that the provisions impaired purchasers' access to ammunition.

Key quotations

We hold that, on this record, Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden of demonstrating that the ammunition background check provisions meaningfully constrain their ability to “keep” or “bear” arms under the first step of the Bruen framework. (4)
In sum, none of the challenged provisions—individually or collectively—meaningfully constrain an individual’s right to “keep” and “bear” arms so as to implicate the plain text of the Second Amendment. (31)

Factual background

New York's Concealed Carry Improvement Act requires ammunition sellers to conduct background checks before ammunition sales, pay a fee for each check, and register with or involve a licensed firearms dealer or registered ammunition seller in commercial transfers. Several individual plaintiffs alleged that the background-check process, fee, or registration requirements deterred them from purchasing or selling ammunition; one plaintiff encountered a malfunctioning database. The record showed immediate approvals in some cases and, at most, short delays or isolated system failures, but did not establish that the provisions substantially prevented access to ammunition.

Procedural history

Plaintiffs sued the Superintendent under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 after the CCIA ammunition provisions took effect. The Western District of New York concluded that NYSFA lacked associational standing but that the individual plaintiffs had standing, and denied preliminary injunctive relief after finding that plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed under the second step of the Bruen framework. The Second Circuit affirmed on different grounds and remanded for further proceedings.

Remand instructions

The case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. Plaintiffs may submit additional evidence concerning whether implementation of the ammunition background-check provisions meaningfully constrains their ability to keep or bear arms.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…