A previous edition of this column addressed the New York Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement Act, more commonly referred to as the NY SAFE Act. The SAFE Act was enacted on January 15, 2013, only weeks after the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. At the time of its enactment, Governor Cuomo described the highly controversial law as giving New York State the toughest gun control laws in the nation. The most prominent features of the SAFE Act are an expanded definition and registration requirement for assault weapons, new limitations on the possession and use of “high capacity” ammunition magazines, new requirements on the private sale of firearms, and new safe storage requirements.
Following the enactment of the SAFE Act, several individuals and organizations filed lawsuits which sought to challenge the SAFE Act based on the argument that the restrictions violated the “right to bear arms” included in the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. One of those cases, pending in the United States District Court of the Western District of New York, resulted in a December 31, 2013 decision which is the first to address the constitutionality of the SAFE Act.
In reaching its decision, the Court took pains to emphasize that the question of “whether regulating firearms is wise or warranted is not a judicial question; it is a political one.” Instead, the Court noted, its function was limited to deciding whether the Legislature acted within the confines of the U.S. Constitution in passing the SAFE Act. With that limited role in mind, the Court concluded that the majority of the challenged provisions withstood constitutional scrutiny.
Certain provisions of the Act were, however, struck down by the Court as unconstitutionally vague. The first part of the Act that was declared unconstitutional on vagueness grounds was a provision which regulated “muzzle breaks” on certain firearms. While a “muzzle brake” is a firearm attachment that reduces recoil, the Court pointed out that there is no such thing as a “muzzle break” and, as a result, an ordinary person would be unable to know what the SAFE Act was regulating. While likely attributable to a typographical error in the drafting of the statute, the result of the error was the Court striking all references in the Act to “muzzle breaks.”
The Court also struck down as unduly vague that part of the Act which bans semiautomatic pistols that are “semiautomatic versions of an automatic rifle, shotgun or firearm.” The Court concluded that this language was insufficient to adequately inform an ordinary gun owner of whether his or her specific weapon would be considered a “version” of an automatic weapon. Given the lack of “fair warning” as to what types of weapons would be considered legal or illegal, and the resulting risk of arbitrary enforcement, the Court struck the provision as unconstitutionally vague.
Finally, the Court overturned one of the Act’s more controversial provisions – the “seven round limit” on the number of rounds that can be legally loaded into a magazine (which, under the Act, can have up to a ten round capacity). The Court found that the State had failed to adequately explain its decision to set the maximum number at seven rounds, a figure which the Court believed to be a “largely arbitrary number” unrelated to any legitimate governmental interest in public safety or crime prevention. The Court observed that those intent on doing harm with a firearm are unlikely to adhere to the seven round limit, leading to what the Court characterized as “the possibility of a disturbing perverse effect, pitting the criminal with a fully loaded magazine against the law-abiding citizen limited to seven rounds.” Absent a persuasive rational explaining how public safety and crime prevention would be served by prohibiting law abiding citizens from loading a full ten rounds into their (legal) ten round capacity magazines, the Court found this part of the Act to be unconstitutional.
The Court’s December 31, 2013 decision earns the distinction of being the first decision issued regarding the SAFE Act, but it certainly will not be the last. Other Courts with pending cases challenging the SAFE Act will issue their own decisions in time, which may reach different conclusions on the legal issues presented. The December 31, 2013 decision itself is already subject to an appeal to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. As New York’s gun law continues to evolve through the judicial and legislative processes, it will be important for gun owners to stay informed of their rights and obligations.
