Gazzola v. Hochul

645 F.Supp.3d 37

Nadine GAZZOLA, individually, and as co-owner, President, and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Federal Firearms Licensee ("BATFE FFL") Responsible Person for Zero Tolerance Manufacturing, Inc., Seth Gazzola, individually, and as co-owner, Vice President, and BATFE FFL Responsible Person for Zero Tolerance Manufacturing, Inc., John A. Hanusik, individually, and as owner and BATFE FFL Responsible Person for AGA Sales, Jim Ingerick, individually, and as owner and BATFE FFL Responsible Person for Ingerick's, LLC, d/b/a Avon Gun & Hunting Supply, Christopher Martello, individually, and as owner and BATFE FFL Responsible Person for Performance Paintball, Inc., d/b/a Ikkin Arms, Michael Mastrogiovanni, individually, and as owner and BATFE FFL Responsible Person for Spur Shooters Supply, Robert Owens, individually, and as owner and BATFE FFL Responsible Person for Thousand Islands Armory, Craig Serafini, individually, and as owner and BATFE FFL Responsible Person for Upstate Guns and Ammo, LLC, Nick Affronti, individually, and as BATFE FFL Responsible Person for East Side Traders LLC, and, Empire State Arms Collectors, Inc., Plaintiffs, v. Kathleen HOCHUL, in her official capacity as Governor of the State of New York, Steven A. Nigrelli, in his official capacity as the Acting Superintendent of the New York State Police, Rossana Rosado, in her official capacity as the Commissioner of the Department of Criminal Justice Services of the New York State Police, and Letitia James, in her official capacity as the Attorney General of the State of New York, Defendants.

1:22-cv-1134 (BKS/DJS)

United States District Court, N.D. New York

Signed December 7, 2022

For Plaintiffs: Paloma A. Capanna, Law Office of Paloma A. Capanna, P.C., 106-B Professional Park Drive, Beaufort, North Carolina 28516.

For Defendants: Letitia James, Attorney General of the State of New York, Aimee Cowan, Timothy P. Mulvey, Assistant Attorneys General, 300 South State Street, Suite 300, Syracuse, New York 13202.

MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER

Brenda K. Sannes, Chief United States District Judge:

I. INTRODUCTION

On November 1, 2022, Plaintiffs initiated an action under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985 against Defendants Kathleen Hochul, in her official capacity as Governor of the State of New York, Steven Nigrelli, in his official capacity as the Acting Superintendent of the New York State Police, Rosanna Rosado, in her official capacity as the Commissioner of the New York Department of Criminal Justice Services,¹ and Letitia James, in her official capacity as the Attorney General of the State of New York, alleging that certain provisions of New York firearms law deprive them of civil rights secured by the Second, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments. (Dkt. No. 1, ¶¶ 1, 306-25.) Plaintiffs further allege that certain challenged provisions are pre-empted by federal statutory and regulatory law, (id. ¶¶ 326-35), certain challenged provisions run afoul of the Second, Fifth, or Fourteenth Amendments, (id. ¶¶ 308-09, 322, 336-43), and certain challenged provisions are unconstitutional under an apparently novel theory of "constitutional-regulatory overburden," (id. ¶¶ 344-51). On November 8, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction under Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure seeking an order enjoining enforcement of the challenged provisions. (Dkt. No. 13, at 2-5.) The motion is fully briefed, with an opposition from Defendants and a reply by Plaintiffs. (Dkt. Nos. 29, 33.) The Court held a hearing on December 1, 2022. After considering the parties' submissions and oral arguments, the Court orally denied Plaintiffs' motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction and indicated that a written decision would follow. (Dkt. No. 37.) This is that decision, including the Court's findings of fact and conclusions of law in accordance with Rule 52(a)(2).

II. FACTS²

A. Plaintiffs

Plaintiffs are nine individuals and one business organization.³ At least eight⁴ of the Plaintiffs are qualified under federal law as "Responsible Persons," (Dkt. No. 13-2, ¶ 11 n.1), associated with a federal firearms license ("FFL"). (Id. ¶ 11; Dkt. No. 13-3, ¶ 14; Dkt. No. 13-4, ¶ 6; Dkt. No. 13-5, ¶ 6; Dkt. No. 13-6, ¶ 13; Dkt. No. 13-7, ¶ 6; Dkt. No. 13-8, ¶ 6; Dkt. No. 13-9, ¶ 6.) At least seven⁵ of the nine business organizations owned by Plaintiffs possess federal firearms licenses that allow them to serve as dealers in firearms. (Dkt. No. 13-2, ¶ 12; Dkt. No. 13-3, ¶ 13-14; Dkt. No. 13-4, ¶ 6; Dkt. No. 13-5, ¶ 6; Dkt. No. 13-6, ¶ 13; Dkt. No. 13-7, ¶ 6; Dkt. No. 13-8, ¶ 6; Dkt. No. 13-9, ¶ 6); see also 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(11)(A). Two of these business organizations possess federal firearms licenses that allow them to serve as firearms manufacturers. (Dkt. No. 13-2, ¶ 12; Dkt. No. 13-3, ¶ 14; Dkt. No. 13-6, ¶ 13); see also 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(10). One of the business organizations possesses a federal firearms license that allows it to serve as a firearms pawnbroker. (Dkt. No. 13-7, ¶ 6); see also 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(12). At least six⁶ of the nine business organizations also hold firearms licenses under New York law. (Dkt. No. 13-2, ¶ 15; Dkt. No. 13-4, ¶ 7; Dkt. No. 13-5, ¶ 6; Dkt. No. 13-6, ¶ 15; Dkt. No. 13-7, ¶ 7; Dkt. No. 13-9, ¶ 7.) Plaintiff Empire State Arms Collectors, Inc., holds neither a federal nor a New York firearms license. (Dkt. No. 1, ¶ 14.)⁷

B. Challenged Laws

Plaintiffs claim to be challenging thirty-one statutory firearms provisions. (Dkt. No. 1, ¶¶ 28, 32.) Their list of challenged provisions, however, appears to contain only twenty-four unique sections and subsections. (Id. ¶ 31.)⁸ Each provision challenged in the complaint is set forth in the following table:

          New York                             New York                      New York
          Penal Law                      General Business Law               Executive Law
  N.Y. Penal § 265.20(3-a)         N.Y. Gen. Bus. § 875-b(1)           N.Y. Exec. § 144-a
  N.Y. Penal § 270.22              N.Y. Gen. Bus. § 875-b(2)           N.Y. Exec. § 228
  N.Y. Penal § 400.00(1)           N.Y. Gen. Bus. § 875-c              N.Y. Exec. § 837(23)(a)
  N.Y. Penal § 400.00(2)           N.Y. Gen. Bus. § 875-e
  N.Y. Penal § 400.00(3)           N.Y. Gen. Bus. § 875-f
  N.Y. Penal § 400.00(6)           N.Y. Gen. Bus. § 875-g(1)(b)9
  N.Y. Penal § 400.00(7)           N.Y. Gen. Bus. § 875-g(2)
  N.Y. Penal § 400.00(8)           N.Y. Gen. Bus. § 875-h
  N.Y. Penal § 400.00(9)
  N.Y. Penal § 400.00(14)
  N.Y. Penal § 400.00(19)
  N.Y. Penal § 400.02(2)
  N.Y. Penal § 400.03(2)

[Editor's Note: The preceding image contains the reference for footnote⁹].

(Id.) In their memorandum of law in support of their motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, Plaintiffs separate these laws into three groups¹⁰ and challenge each group under a different theory,¹¹ as set forth below:

             Group A:                                  Group B:                                    Group C
    "pre-empted by federal law"         "unconstitutional under the Second,            "unconstitutional regulatory
        (Dkt. No. 13, at 3)               Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments"           overburden in violation of the
                                                  (Dkt. No. 13, at 4)                       Second and Fourteenth
                                                                                                  Amendments"
                                                                                            (Dkt. No. 13, at 4-5)
  N.Y. Gen. Bus. § 875-b(1)            N.Y. Gen. Bus. § 875-g(1)(b)           N.Y. Gen. Bus. § 875-b(1)
  N.Y. Gen. Bus. § 875-b(2)            N.Y. Penal §§ 400.00(1), (19)         N.Y. Gen. Bus. § 875-b(2)
  N.Y. Gen. Bus. § 875-f               N.Y. Exec. § 837(23)(a)                N.Y. Gen. Bus. § 875-c
  N.Y. Gen. Bus. § 875-f(1)-(4)        N.Y. Penal § 265.20(3-a)               N.Y. Gen. Bus. § 875-c
  N.Y. Gen. Bus. § 875-f(2)            N.Y. Penal §§ 400.00(2)-(3),           N.Y. Gen. Bus. § 875-e(3)
                                        (6)-(9), (14)
  N.Y. Gen. Bus. § 875-f(3)            N.Y. Penal § 265.6512                  N.Y. Gen. Bus. § 875-f(2)
  N.Y. Gen. Bus. § 875-g(1)(b)         N.Y. Penal § 265.6612                  N.Y. Gen. Bus. § 875-g(2)
  N.Y. Penal § 400.02(2)               N.Y. Penal § 400.02(2)                 N.Y. Penal § 270.22
  N.Y. Exec. § 228                                                             N.Y. Exec. § 144-a
                                                                               N.Y. Penal § 400.03(2)

[Editor's Note: The preceding image contains the reference for footnote¹²].

Plaintiffs have stated their opposition to compliance with the New York laws. (Dkt. No. 13-2, ¶¶ 64, 66, 68, 69, 70; Dkt. No. 13-3, ¶ 22; Dkt. No. 13-4, ¶¶ 29, 66, 83; Dkt. No. 13-5, ¶ 65; Dkt. No. 13-6, ¶¶ 40, 79, 87, 88, 92, 95; Dkt. No. 13-7, ¶ 71; Dkt. No. 13-8, ¶ 30.) Plaintiffs have also stated that the laws already in effect have had adverse economic consequences, (Dkt. No. 13-2, ¶¶ 56-61; Dkt. No. 13-3, ¶ 42; Dkt. No. 13-4, ¶ 22; Dkt. No. 13-6, ¶¶ 53, 61, 69; Dkt. No. 13-7, ¶ 37; Dkt. No. 13-8, ¶¶ 52, 59; Dkt. No. 13-9, ¶¶ 13-14), and that there will be economic consequences when the remaining laws take effect, (Dkt. No. 13-4, ¶ 22; Dkt. No. 13-5, ¶¶ 25, 68; Dkt. No. 13-8, ¶¶ 29, 58, 60). Additionally, the Court notes that the knowing violation of N.Y. Gen. Bus. art. 39-BB is a class A misdemeanor and that violations of N.Y. Penal §§ 265.65, 265.66, 270.22, 400.00, 400.03 carry consequences under New York Penal Law. See N.Y. Gen. Bus. § 875-i; N.Y. Penal §§ 265.65, 265.66, 270.22, 400.00(15), 400.03(8).

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs temporary restraining orders and preliminary...