Law Enforcement Groups Submit Important Brief Opposing New York Gun Bans

On Tuesday, May 14, attorneys at Michel and Associates, P.C. submitted an amici curiae "friend of the court" brief on behalf of several New York law enforcement officials and organizations urging the court to strike down the State’s recently adopted and misnamed "SAFE" Act. The case, New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Cuomo, challenges the controversial laws that ban certain commonly possessed semi-automatic sporting rifles by mis-classifying them as "assault weapons" and drastically restrict the possession and use of certain magazines, forbidding citizens from loading more than 7 rounds into one.

The brief supports the plaintiffs in the case and joins with the amicus brief filed by the NRA in asking the court to block the enforcement of the laws.

The law enforcement brief provides the court with unique law enforcement perspectives concerning the lack of justification for the new laws and the negative impact the laws will have on public safety. The brief also points out the many vague and hopelessly confusing terms used in the law, all of which will promote arbitrary and inequitable enforcement by police.

The law enforcement coalition brief informs the court that many officers regularly choose the banned firearms and magazines for defense of themselves and their families when they are off duty, and after they retire. The brief maintains that the laws are "willfully blind to legitimate safety interests, don’t assist law enforcement in reducing violent crime, and instead are tailored to negatively impact law-abiding firearm owners." According to the amici, "it is hard to imagine that any officer would intentionally limit himself or herself to seven-round magazines in a self-defense situation, whether in the field or at home, where an officer’s self-defense needs are equal to that of law-abiding citizens. It is likewise doubtful that any officer would suggest that a law-abiding person do so."

The brief explains that the laws fail to provide clear standards to govern law enforcement, particularly because the laws require enforcement against individuals attempting to exercise their fundamental right to keep and bear arms. Importantly, law enforcement urge the court to adopt a "heightened vagueness standard" to ensure that laws restricting Second Amendment freedoms provide the greatest clarity. The police coalition brief explains that officers "are put in the unenviable position of guessing whether individuals exercising their Second Amendment rights should be arrested, and that law enforcement officials are likely to face suits for wrongful arrests and have prosecutions dismissed."

The New York State Sheriffs’ Association is the lead organization on the law enforcement brief. It is joined by Erie County Sheriff Timothy B. Howard, Oswego County Sheriff Reuel A. Todd, Wayne County Sheriff Barry C. Virts, Putnam County Sheriff Donald B. Smith, and Fulton County Sheriff Thomas J. Lorey, the Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund (LELDF), the Law Enforcement Action Network (LEAN), and the International Law Enforcement Educators and Trainers Association (ILEETA). The decision of these prestigious law enforcement organizations to submit a legal brief opposing the legislation is an important step in the fight to protect the Second Amendment for New York gun owners. The NYSSA-led coalition’s views should be influential with the court.

Several prominent attorneys also signed onto the brief along with Michel & Associates, P.C.. These include Edwin Meese, former United States Solicitor General and Chief of Staff for President Ronald Reagan and esteemed New York attorney and noted firearms law scholar Jeffrey Chamberlain.

The State’s opposition brief is due next month. Oral arguments are expected to take place sometime this summer.

Although this case involves a challenge to New York firearms laws, it could have significant ramifications for California firearm owners, who find themselves subject to similar restrictions on so-called "assault weapons" and the sale of standard-capacity magazines that hold over ten rounds. Californians are also facing many bills pending in the state legislature that would drastically expand these prohibitions, as California’s own gun-grabbing politicians attempt to capitalize on the tragic events of Newton. California gun owners can expect these laws to be met with fierce resistance by the NRA in the courts, and this case could set important precedent for the NRA’s California legal team.