Summary
This Second Circuit opinion reviews a facial, preenforcement challenge brought by firearm manufacturers and trade associations against New York’s gun-related public nuisance statute. The court affirmed the district court’s dismissal, concluding that the plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of showing the statute is unenforceable in all applications. Specifically, the panel held that the statute falls within the predicate exception of the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, does not violate the dormant Commerce Clause, and is not void for vagueness.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether New York General Business Law § 898 is facially preempted by the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.
- Whether Section 898 is impliedly preempted because it does not expressly include PLCAA’s knowing-violation and proximate-cause requirements.
- Whether Section 898 violates the dormant Commerce Clause by discriminating against or unduly burdening interstate commerce or regulating extraterritorial conduct.
- Whether Section 898 is facially void for vagueness under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
- Whether the plaintiffs’ preenforcement challenge was facial rather than as-applied.
Holdings
- Because the plaintiffs did not identify a specific course of conduct they would pursue but for fear of enforcement, their preenforcement challenge was facial rather than as-applied.
- Section 898 falls within the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act’s predicate exception and is not expressly preempted.
- The plaintiffs failed to establish facial conflict preemption merely because Section 898 does not expressly repeat PLCAA’s knowing-violation and proximate-cause requirements.
- Section 898 does not facially violate the dormant Commerce Clause.
- Section 898 is not facially void for vagueness.
Key quotations
“A facial challenge is ‘the most difficult challenge to mount successfully’ because, as a general matter, ‘the challenger must establish that no set of circumstances exists under which the Act would be valid.’” (at 17)
“The term “includes” is typically interpreted as “a term of enlargement, and not of limitation.”” (at 25-26)
“We conclude that Appellants have not met their burden of demonstrating that Section 898 is so “fatally indefinite” that it cannot be constitutionally applied under any circumstances.” (at 42)
Factual background
New York enacted General Business Law § 898, a firearms-specific public nuisance statute imposing duties on gun industry members to establish and use reasonable controls and procedures to prevent unlawful possession, use, marketing, or sale of firearms in New York. The statute also permits liability for knowingly or recklessly creating, maintaining, or contributing to a condition in New York that endangers public safety or health through the sale, manufacture, importation, or marketing of firearms. The plaintiffs are a firearms-industry trade association and fourteen members that ship or transport firearms and ammunition into New York, and they challenged the statute before enforcement.
Procedural history
Appellants filed a preenforcement action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against enforcement of New York’s gun-related public nuisance statute and sought a preliminary injunction. The United States District Court for the Northern District of New York granted the State’s motion to dismiss and denied the preliminary-injunction motion, holding that Section 898 was not preempted by the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, did not violate the dormant Commerce Clause, and was not unconstitutionally vague. The Second Circuit affirmed.