14Ȭ36Ȭcv(L);ȱ14Ȭ319Ȭcvȱ ȱNewȱYorkȱStateȱRifleȱ&ȱPistolȱAss’n,ȱInc.,ȱetȱal.ȱv.ȱCuomo,ȱetȱal.ȱȱConnecticutȱCitizens’ȱDefenseȱLeague,ȱetȱal.ȱv.ȱMalloy,ȱetȱal.ȱ

In the 1ȱ

United States Court of Appeals 2ȱ

for the Second Circuit 3ȱȱ ȱ ȱ4ȱ

ȱ5ȱAUGUSTȱTERMȱ2014ȱ6ȱȱ ȱ ȱ7ȱ

ȱ8ȱNos.ȱ14Ȭ36Ȭcvȱ(Lead);ȱ14Ȭ37Ȭcvȱ(XAP)ȱ9ȱ

ȱ10ȱNEWȱYORKȱSTATEȱRIFLEȱANDȱPISTOLȱASSOCIATION,ȱINC.,ȱWESTCHESTERȱ11ȱ

COUNTYȱFIREARMSȱOWNERSȱASSOCIATION,ȱINC.,ȱSPORTSMEN’Sȱ12ȱASSOCIATIONȱFORȱFIREARMSȱEDUCATION,ȱINC.,ȱNEWȱYORKȱSTATEȱ13ȱAMATEURȱTRAPSHOOTINGȱASSOCIATION,ȱINC.,ȱBEDELLȱCUSTOM,ȱ14ȱ

BEIKIRCHȱAMMUNITIONȱCORPORATION,ȱBLUELINEȱTACTICALȱ&ȱPOLICEȱ15ȱSUPPLY,ȱLLC,ȱBATAVIAȱMARINEȱ&ȱSPORTINGȱSUPPLY,ȱWILLIAMȱNOJAY,ȱ16ȱ

THOMASȱGALVIN,ȱROGERȱHORVATH,ȱ17ȱȱ18ȱ

PlaintiffsȬAppellantsȬCrossȬAppellees,ȱ19ȱȱ20ȱ

v.ȱ21ȱȱ22ȱANDREWȱM.ȱCUOMO,ȱinȱhisȱofficialȱcapacityȱasȱGovernorȱofȱtheȱStateȱ23ȱ

ofȱNewȱYork,ȱERICȱT.ȱSCHNEIDERMAN,ȱinȱhisȱofficialȱcapacityȱasȱ24ȱAttorneyȱGeneralȱofȱtheȱStateȱofȱNewȱYork,ȱJOSEPHȱA.ȱD’AMICO,ȱinȱ25ȱhisȱofficialȱcapacityȱasȱSuperintendentȱofȱtheȱNewȱYorkȱStateȱPolice,ȱ26ȱ

ȱ27ȱDefendantsȬAppelleesȬCrossȬAppellants,ȱ28ȱ

ȱ29ȱȱ ȱ30ȱ

ȱ

2ȱ

GERALDȱJ.ȱGILL,ȱinȱhisȱofficialȱcapacityȱasȱChiefȱofȱPoliceȱforȱtheȱTownȱ1ȱofȱLancaster,ȱNewȱYork,ȱLAWRENCEȱFRIEDMAN,ȱȱ2ȱ

ȱ3ȱDefendantsȬAppellees,ȱ4ȱ

ȱ5ȱFRANKȱA.ȱSEDITA,ȱIII,ȱinȱhisȱofficialȱcapacityȱasȱDistrictȱAttorneyȱforȱ6ȱ

ErieȱCounty,ȱ7ȱȱ8ȱ

Defendant.ȱ9ȱȱ10ȱ

OnȱAppealȱfromȱtheȱUnitedȱStatesȱDistrictȱCourtȱ11ȱforȱtheȱWesternȱDistrictȱofȱNewȱYorkȱ12ȱ

ȱ ȱ ȱ13ȱȱ14ȱ

No.ȱ14Ȭ319Ȭcvȱ15ȱȱ16ȱTHEȱCONNECTICUTȱCITIZENS’ȱDEFENSEȱLEAGUE,ȱTHEȱCOALITIONȱOFȱ17ȱCONNECTICUTȱSPORTSMEN,ȱJUNEȱSHEW,ȱRABBIȱMITCHELLȱROCKLIN,ȱ18ȱSTEPHANIEȱCYPHER,ȱPETERȱOWENS,ȱBRIANȱMCCLAIN,ȱANDREWȱ19ȱMUELLER,ȱHILLERȱSPORTS,ȱLLC,ȱMDȱSHOOTINGȱSPORTS,ȱLLC,ȱ20ȱ

ȱ21ȱPlaintiffsȬAppellants,ȱ22ȱ

ȱ23ȱv.ȱ24ȱ

ȱ25ȱDANNELȱP.ȱMALLOY,ȱinȱhisȱofficialȱcapacityȱasȱGovernorȱofȱtheȱStateȱ26ȱ

ofȱConnecticut,ȱKEVINȱT.ȱKANE,ȱinȱhisȱofficialȱcapacityȱasȱChiefȱ27ȱState’sȱAttorneyȱofȱtheȱStateȱofȱConnecticut,ȱDORAȱB.ȱSCHRIRO,ȱinȱherȱ28ȱofficialȱcapacityȱasȱCommissionerȱofȱtheȱConnecticutȱDepartmentȱofȱ29ȱEmergencyȱServicesȱandȱPublicȱProtection,ȱDAVIDȱI.ȱCOHEN,ȱinȱhisȱ30ȱofficialȱcapacityȱasȱState’sȱAttorneyȱforȱtheȱStamford/Norwalkȱ31ȱ

JudicialȱDistrict,ȱGeographicalȱAreasȱNos.ȱ1ȱandȱ20,ȱJOHNȱC.ȱSMRIGA,ȱ32ȱ

ȱ

3ȱ

inȱhisȱofficialȱcapacityȱasȱState’sȱAttorneyȱforȱtheȱFairfieldȱJudicialȱ1ȱDistrict,ȱGeographicalȱAreaȱNo.ȱ2,ȱMAUREENȱPLATT,ȱinȱherȱofficialȱ2ȱcapacityȱasȱState’sȱAttorneyȱforȱtheȱWaterburyȱJudicialȱDistrict,ȱ3ȱ

GeographicalȱAreaȱNo.ȱ4,ȱKEVINȱD.ȱLAWLOR,ȱinȱhisȱofficialȱcapacityȱ4ȱasȱState’sȱAttorneyȱforȱtheȱAnsonia/MilfordȱJudicialȱDistrict,ȱ5ȱ

GeographicalȱAreasȱNos.ȱ5ȱandȱ22,ȱMICHAELȱDEARINGTON,ȱinȱhisȱ6ȱofficialȱcapacityȱasȱState’sȱAttorneyȱforȱtheȱNewȱHavenȱJudicialȱ7ȱ

District,ȱGeographicalȱAreaȱNos.ȱ7ȱandȱ23,ȱPETERȱA.ȱMCSHANE,ȱinȱhisȱ8ȱofficialȱcapacityȱasȱState’sȱAttorneyȱforȱtheȱMiddlesexȱJudicialȱ9ȱ

District,ȱGeographicalȱAreaȱNo.ȱ9,ȱMICHAELȱL.ȱREGAN,ȱinȱhisȱofficialȱ10ȱcapacityȱasȱState’sȱAttorneyȱforȱtheȱNewȱLondonȱJudicialȱDistrict,ȱ11ȱGeographicalȱAreaȱNos.ȱ10ȱandȱ21,ȱPATRICIAȱM.ȱFROEHLICH,ȱGAILȱP.ȱ12ȱHARDY,ȱinȱherȱofficialȱcapacityȱasȱState’sȱAttorneyȱforȱtheȱHartfordȱ13ȱJudicialȱDistrict,ȱGeographicalȱAreasȱNos.ȱ12,ȱ13,ȱandȱ14,ȱBRIANȱ14ȱPRELESKI,ȱinȱhisȱofficialȱcapacityȱasȱState’sȱAttorneyȱforȱtheȱNewȱ15ȱBritainȱJudicialȱDistrict,ȱGeographicalȱAreaȱNos.ȱ15ȱandȱ17,ȱDAVIDȱ16ȱ

SHEPACK,ȱinȱhisȱofficialȱcapacityȱasȱState’sȱAttorneyȱforȱtheȱLitchfieldȱ17ȱJudicialȱDistrict,ȱGeographicalȱAreaȱNo.ȱ18,ȱMATTHEWȱC.ȱGEDANSKY,ȱ18ȱinȱhisȱofficialȱcapacityȱasȱState’sȱAttorneyȱforȱtheȱTollandȱJudicialȱ19ȱDistrict,ȱGeographicalȱAreaȱNo.ȱ19,ȱSTEPHENȱJ.ȱSEDENSKYȱIII,ȱinȱhisȱ20ȱ

officialȱcapacityȱasȱState’sȱAttorneyȱforȱtheȱDanburyȱJudicialȱDistrict,ȱ21ȱGeographicalȱAreaȱNo.ȱ3,ȱ22ȱ

ȱ23ȱDefendantsȬAppellees.ȱ24ȱ

ȱ25ȱOnȱAppealȱfromȱtheȱUnitedȱStatesȱDistrictȱCourtȱ26ȱ

forȱtheȱDistrictȱofȱConnecticutȱ27ȱȱ ȱ ȱ28ȱ

ȱ29ȱARGUED:ȱDECEMBERȱ9,ȱ2014ȱ30ȱDECIDED:ȱOCTOBERȱ19,ȱ2015ȱ31ȱ

ȱ ȱ ȱ32ȱ

ȱ

4ȱ

Before:ȱCABRANES,ȱLOHIER,ȱandȱDRONEY,ȱCircuitȱJudges.ȱ1ȱȱ ȱ ȱ2ȱ

ȱ3ȱBeforeȱ theȱ Courtȱ areȱ twoȱ appealsȱ challengingȱ gunȬcontrolȱ4ȱ

legislationȱenactedȱbyȱtheȱNewȱYorkȱandȱConnecticutȱlegislaturesȱinȱ5ȱtheȱ wakeȱ ofȱ theȱ 2012ȱ massȱ murdersȱ atȱ Sandyȱ Hookȱ Elementaryȱ6ȱSchoolȱ inȱNewtown,ȱConnecticut.ȱTheȱNewȱYorkȱ andȱConnecticutȱ7ȱlawsȱ atȱ issueȱ prohibitȱ theȱ possessionȱ ofȱ certainȱ semiautomaticȱ8ȱ“assaultȱ weapons”ȱ andȱ largeȬcapacityȱ magazines.ȱ Followingȱ theȱ9ȱentryȱ ofȱ summaryȱ judgmentȱ inȱ favorȱ ofȱdefendantsȱ onȱ theȱ centralȱ10ȱclaimsȱ inȱ bothȱ theȱ Westernȱ Districtȱ ofȱ Newȱ Yorkȱ (Williamȱ M.ȱ11ȱSkretny,ȱ Chiefȱ Judge)ȱ andȱ theȱ Districtȱ ofȱ Connecticutȱ (Alfredȱ V.ȱ12ȱCovello,ȱJudge),ȱplaintiffsȱinȱbothȱsuitsȱnowȱpressȱtwoȱargumentsȱonȱ13ȱappeal.ȱ First,ȱ theyȱ challengeȱ theȱ constitutionalityȱ ofȱ theȱ statutesȱ14ȱunderȱ theȱSecondȱAmendment;ȱandȱ second,ȱ theyȱ challengeȱ certainȱ15ȱprovisionsȱofȱtheȱstatutesȱasȱunconstitutionallyȱvague.ȱDefendantsȱinȱ16ȱtheȱ Newȱ Yorkȱ actionȱ alsoȱ crossȬappealȱ theȱ Districtȱ Court’sȱ17ȱinvalidationȱofȱNewȱYork’sȱ sevenȬroundȱ loadȱ limitȱandȱvoidingȱofȱ18ȱtwoȱstatutoryȱprovisionsȱasȱfaciallyȱunconstitutionallyȱvague.ȱ19ȱ

Weȱ holdȱ thatȱ theȱ coreȱ provisionsȱ ofȱ theȱ Newȱ Yorkȱ andȱ20ȱConnecticutȱ lawsȱ prohibitingȱ possessionȱ ofȱ semiautomaticȱ assaultȱ21ȱweaponsȱ andȱ largeȬcapacityȱmagazinesȱ doȱ notȱ violateȱ theȱ Secondȱ22ȱAmendment,ȱandȱ thatȱ theȱchallengedȱ individualȱprovisionsȱareȱnotȱ23ȱvoidȱ forȱ vagueness.ȱ Theȱ particularȱ provisionȱ ofȱ Newȱ York’sȱ lawȱ24ȱregulatingȱ loadȱ limits,ȱ however,ȱ doesȱ notȱ surviveȱ theȱ requisiteȱ25ȱscrutiny.ȱOneȱ furtherȱ specificȱprovision—Connecticut’sȱprohibitionȱ26ȱonȱ theȱ nonȬsemiautomaticȱ Remingtonȱ 7615—unconstitutionallyȱ27ȱinfringesȱ uponȱ theȱ Secondȱ Amendmentȱ right.ȱ Accordingly,ȱ weȱ28ȱAFFIRMȱinȱpartȱtheȱjudgmentȱofȱtheȱDistrictȱCourtȱforȱtheȱDistrictȱofȱ29ȱConnecticutȱ insofarȱ asȱ itȱ upheldȱ theȱ prohibitionȱ ofȱ semiautomaticȱ30ȱassaultȱweaponsȱ andȱ largeȬcapacityȱmagazines,ȱ andȱ REVERSEȱ inȱ31ȱpartȱitsȱholdingȱwithȱrespectȱtoȱtheȱRemingtonȱ7615.ȱWithȱrespectȱtoȱ32ȱ

ȱ

5ȱ

theȱ judgmentȱofȱ theȱDistrictȱCourtȱ forȱ theȱWesternȱDistrictȱofȱNewȱ1ȱYork,ȱ weȱ REVERSEȱ inȱ partȱ certainȱ vaguenessȱ holdings,ȱ andȱ weȱ2ȱotherwiseȱ AFFIRMȱ thatȱ judgmentȱ insofarȱ asȱ itȱ upheldȱ theȱ3ȱprohibitionȱ ofȱ semiautomaticȱ assaultȱ weaponsȱ andȱ largeȬcapacityȱ4ȱmagazinesȱandȱinvalidatedȱtheȱloadȱlimit.ȱ5ȱ

ȱ ȱ ȱ6ȱȱ7ȱ

DAVIDȱTHOMPSON,ȱCharlesȱJ.ȱCooper,ȱPeterȱ8ȱA.ȱPatterson,ȱCooperȱ&ȱKirk,ȱPLLC,ȱ9ȱWashingtonȱDC,ȱANDȱBrianȱT.ȱStapleton,ȱ10ȱMatthewȱS.ȱLerner,ȱGoldbergȱSegallaȱLLP,ȱ11ȱWhiteȱPlains,ȱNY,ȱStephenȱP.ȱHalbrook,ȱ12ȱFairfax,ȱVA,ȱforȱPlaintiffsȬAppellants.ȱ13ȱȱ14ȱBARBARAȱD.ȱUNDERWOOD,ȱSolicitorȱGeneralȱ15ȱofȱtheȱStateȱofȱNewȱYorkȱ(AnishaȱS.ȱ16ȱDasgupta,ȱClaudeȱS.ȱPlatton,ȱOfficeȱofȱtheȱ17ȱSolicitorȱGeneral,ȱonȱtheȱbrief),ȱforȱEricȱT.ȱ18ȱSchneiderman,ȱAttorneyȱGeneralȱforȱtheȱ19ȱStateȱofȱNewȱYork,ȱNewȱYork,ȱNY,ȱforȱ20ȱDefendantsȬAppelleesȬCrossȬAppellantsȱ21ȱAndrewȱM.ȱCuomo,ȱetȱal.ȱ22ȱȱ23ȱMAURAȱB.ȱMURPHYȱOSBORNE,ȱAssistantȱ24ȱAttorneyȱGeneralȱofȱtheȱStateȱofȱ25ȱConnecticutȱ(PerryȱZinnȱRowthorn,ȱ26ȱMichaelȱK.ȱSkold,ȱGregoryȱT.ȱD’Auria,ȱ27ȱOfficeȱofȱtheȱAttorneyȱGeneral,ȱonȱtheȱbrief),ȱ28ȱforȱGeorgeȱJepsen,ȱAttorneyȱGeneralȱofȱtheȱ29ȱStateȱofȱConnecticut,ȱHartford,ȱCT,ȱforȱ30ȱDefendantsȬAppelleesȱDannelȱP.ȱMalloy,ȱetȱal.ȱ31ȱȱ ȱ ȱ32ȱ

ȱ

6ȱ

JOSÉȱA.ȱCABRANES,ȱCircuitȱJudge:ȱ1ȱȱ2ȱ

Beforeȱ theȱ Courtȱ areȱ twoȱ appealsȱ challengingȱ gunȬcontrolȱ3ȱlegislationȱenactedȱbyȱtheȱNewȱYorkȱandȱConnecticutȱlegislaturesȱinȱ4ȱtheȱ wakeȱ ofȱ theȱ 2012ȱ massȱ murdersȱ atȱ Sandyȱ Hookȱ Elementaryȱ5ȱSchoolȱ inȱNewtown,ȱConnecticut.ȱTheȱNewȱYorkȱ andȱConnecticutȱ6ȱlawsȱ atȱ issueȱ prohibitȱ theȱ possessionȱ ofȱ certainȱ semiautomaticȱ7ȱ“assaultȱ weapons”ȱ andȱ largeȬcapacityȱ magazines.ȱ Followingȱ theȱ8ȱentryȱ ofȱ summaryȱ judgmentȱ inȱ favorȱ ofȱdefendantsȱ onȱ theȱ centralȱ9ȱclaimsȱ inȱ bothȱ theȱ Westernȱ Districtȱ ofȱ Newȱ Yorkȱ (Williamȱ M.ȱ10ȱSkretny,ȱ Chiefȱ Judge)ȱ andȱ theȱ Districtȱ ofȱ Connecticutȱ (Alfredȱ V.ȱ11ȱCovello,ȱJudge),ȱplaintiffsȱinȱbothȱsuitsȱnowȱpressȱtwoȱargumentsȱonȱ12ȱappeal.ȱ First,ȱ theyȱ challengeȱ theȱ constitutionalityȱ ofȱ theȱ statutesȱ13ȱunderȱ theȱSecondȱAmendment;ȱandȱ second,ȱ theyȱ challengeȱ certainȱ14ȱprovisionsȱofȱtheȱstatutesȱasȱunconstitutionallyȱvague.ȱDefendantsȱinȱ15ȱtheȱ Newȱ Yorkȱ actionȱ alsoȱ crossȬappealȱ theȱ Districtȱ Court’sȱ16ȱinvalidationȱ ofȱ Newȱ York’sȱ separateȱ sevenȬroundȱ loadȱ limitȱ andȱ17ȱvoidingȱ ofȱ twoȱ statutoryȱ provisionsȱ asȱ faciallyȱ unconstitutionallyȱ18ȱvague.ȱ19ȱ

Weȱ holdȱ thatȱ theȱ coreȱ provisionsȱ ofȱ theȱ Newȱ Yorkȱ andȱ20ȱConnecticutȱ lawsȱ prohibitingȱ possessionȱ ofȱ semiautomaticȱ assaultȱ21ȱweaponsȱ andȱ largeȬcapacityȱmagazinesȱ doȱ notȱ violateȱ theȱ Secondȱ22ȱAmendment,ȱandȱ thatȱ theȱchallengedȱ individualȱprovisionsȱareȱnotȱ23ȱvoidȱ forȱ vagueness.ȱ Theȱ particularȱ provisionȱ ofȱ Newȱ York’sȱ lawȱ24ȱregulatingȱ loadȱ limits,ȱ however,ȱ doesȱ notȱ surviveȱ theȱ requisiteȱ25ȱscrutiny.ȱOneȱ furtherȱ specificȱprovision—Connecticut’sȱprohibitionȱ26ȱonȱ theȱ nonȬsemiautomaticȱ Remingtonȱ 7615—unconstitutionallyȱ27ȱ

ȱ

7ȱ

infringesȱ uponȱ theȱ Secondȱ Amendmentȱ right.ȱ Accordingly,ȱ weȱ1ȱAFFIRMȱinȱpartȱtheȱjudgmentȱofȱtheȱDistrictȱCourtȱforȱtheȱDistrictȱofȱ2ȱConnecticutȱ insofarȱ asȱ itȱ upheldȱ theȱ prohibitionȱ ofȱ semiautomaticȱ3ȱassaultȱweaponsȱ andȱ largeȬcapacityȱmagazines,ȱ andȱ REVERSEȱ inȱ4ȱpartȱ itsȱholdingȱwithȱrespectȱ toȱ theȱRemington.ȱWithȱrespectȱ toȱ theȱ5ȱjudgmentȱofȱtheȱDistrictȱCourtȱforȱtheȱWesternȱDistrictȱofȱNewȱYork,ȱ6ȱweȱREVERSEȱinȱpartȱcertainȱvaguenessȱholdings,ȱandȱweȱotherwiseȱ7ȱAFFIRMȱ thatȱ judgmentȱ insofarȱ asȱ itȱ upheldȱ theȱ prohibitionȱ ofȱ8ȱsemiautomaticȱ assaultȱweaponsȱ andȱ largeȬcapacityȱmagazinesȱ andȱ9ȱinvalidatedȱtheȱloadȱlimit.ȱ10ȱ

BACKGROUNDȱ11ȱ

I. Priorȱ“AssaultȱWeapon”ȱLegislationȱ12ȱ

NewȱYorkȱandȱConnecticutȱhaveȱlongȱrestrictedȱpossessionȱofȱ13ȱcertainȱ automaticȱ andȱ semiautomaticȱ firearmsȱ thatȱ cameȱ toȱ beȱ14ȱknownȱ asȱ “assaultȱ weapons.”ȱ Inȱ 1993,ȱ Connecticut’sȱ Generalȱ15ȱAssemblyȱ adoptedȱ theȱ state’sȱ firstȱ assaultȬweaponȱ ban,ȱ whichȱ16ȱcriminalizedȱtheȱpossessionȱofȱfirearmsȱ“capableȱofȱfullyȱautomatic,ȱ17ȱsemiautomaticȱorȱburstȱ fireȱatȱ theȱoptionȱofȱ theȱuser,”ȱ includingȱ67ȱ18ȱspecificallyȱenumeratedȱsemiautomaticȱfirearms.1ȱ19ȱ

Theȱ followingȱyear,ȱafterȱ fiveȱyearsȱofȱhearingsȱonȱ theȱharmsȱ20ȱthoughtȱtoȱbeȱcausedȱbyȱcertainȱfirearms,ȱtheȱU.S.ȱCongressȱenactedȱ21ȱlegislationȱ restrictingȱ theȱmanufacture,ȱ transfer,ȱ andȱ possessionȱ ofȱ22ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ1ȱ1993ȱConn.ȱPub.ȱActsȱ93Ȭ306,ȱ§ȱ1(a)ȱ(J.A.,ȱNo.ȱ14Ȭ319Ȭcv,ȱatȱ943).ȱȱ

ȱ

8ȱ

certainȱ“semiautomaticȱassaultȱweapons.”2ȱTheȱ1994ȱ federalȱstatuteȱ1ȱdefinedȱ “semiautomaticȱ assaultȱ weapons”ȱ inȱ twoȱ ways.ȱ First,ȱ itȱ2ȱcataloguedȱ18ȱspecificallyȱprohibitedȱfirearms,ȱincluding,ȱasȱrelevantȱ3ȱhere,ȱ theȱ Coltȱ ARȬ15.ȱ Second,ȱ itȱ introducedȱ aȱ “twoȬfeatureȱ test,”ȱ4ȱwhichȱprohibitedȱanyȱsemiautomaticȱfirearmȱthatȱcontainedȱatȱleastȱ5ȱtwoȱ listedȱmilitaryȬstyleȱ features,ȱ includingȱ aȱ telescopingȱ stock,ȱ aȱ6ȱconspicuouslyȱ protrudingȱ pistolȱ grip,ȱ aȱ bayonetȱ mount,ȱ aȱ flashȱ7ȱsuppressor,ȱ andȱ aȱ grenadeȱ launcher.ȱ Theȱ federalȱ statuteȱ alsoȱ8ȱprohibitedȱmagazinesȱwithȱ aȱ capacityȱ ofȱmoreȱ thanȱ tenȱ roundsȱ ofȱ9ȱammunition,ȱ orȱwhichȱ couldȱ beȱ “readilyȱ restoredȱ orȱ convertedȱ toȱ10ȱaccept”ȱ moreȱ thanȱ 10ȱ rounds.3ȱ Theȱ federalȱ assaultȬweaponsȱ banȱ11ȱexpiredȱinȱ2004,ȱpursuantȱtoȱitsȱsunsetȱprovision.4ȱȱ12ȱ

Followingȱ theȱ passageȱ ofȱ theȱ federalȱ assaultȬweaponsȱ ban,ȱ13ȱbothȱ Newȱ York,ȱ inȱ 2000,ȱ andȱ Connecticut,ȱ inȱ 2001,ȱ enactedȱ14ȱlegislationȱ thatȱ closelyȱmirroredȱ theȱ federalȱ statute,ȱ includingȱ theȱ15ȱtwoȬfeatureȱ testȱ forȱprohibitedȱ semiautomaticȱ firearms.5ȱUnlikeȱ theȱ16ȱfederalȱ statute,ȱ however,ȱ theseȱ stateȱ lawsȱ containedȱ noȱ sunsetȱ17ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ2ȱViolentȱCrimeȱControlȱandȱLawȱEnforcementȱActȱofȱ1994,ȱPub.ȱL.ȱNo.ȱ

103Ȭ322,ȱtit.ȱXI,ȱsubtit.ȱAȱ§ȱ110102(b),ȱ108ȱStat.ȱ1796,ȱ1997.ȱ3ȱId.ȱ§ȱ110103.ȱ4ȱId.ȱ§ȱ110105.ȱ5ȱSeeȱActȱofȱAug.ȱ8,ȱ2000,ȱch.ȱ189,ȱ§ȱ10,ȱ2000ȱN.Y.ȱLawsȱ2788,ȱ2792ȱ(J.A.,ȱNo.ȱ

14Ȭ36Ȭcv,ȱatȱ923Ȭ30);ȱ2001ȱConn.ȱPub.ȱActsȱ01Ȭ130,ȱ§ȱ1ȱ(J.A.,ȱNo.ȱ14Ȭ319Ȭcv,ȱatȱ949Ȭ60).ȱLikeȱtheȱfederalȱstatute,ȱtheȱ2000ȱNewȱYorkȱstatuteȱalsoȱrestrictedȱtheȱpossessionȱofȱcertainȱlargeȬcapacityȱmagazines.ȱȱ

ȱ

9ȱ

provisionsȱandȱthusȱremainedȱinȱforceȱuntilȱamendedȱbyȱtheȱstatutesȱ1ȱatȱissueȱhere.ȱ2ȱ

OnȱDecemberȱ 14,ȱ 2012,ȱ aȱ gunmanȱ shotȱ hisȱwayȱ intoȱ Sandyȱ3ȱHookȱElementaryȱ Schoolȱ inȱNewtown,ȱConnecticutȱ andȱmurderedȱ4ȱtwentyȱ firstȬgradersȱ andȱ sixȱ adultsȱ usingȱ aȱ semiautomaticȱARȬ15Ȭ5ȱtypeȱ rifleȱwithȱ tenȱ largeȬcapacityȱmagazines.ȱThisȱappallingȱattack,ȱ6ȱinȱadditionȱtoȱotherȱrecentȱmassȱshootings,ȱprovidedȱtheȱimmediateȱ7ȱimpetusȱforȱtheȱlegislationȱatȱissueȱinȱthisȱappeal.6ȱ8ȱ

II. TheȱNewȱYorkȱLegislationȱ9ȱ

Newȱ Yorkȱ enactedȱ theȱ Secureȱ Ammunitionȱ andȱ Firearmsȱ10ȱEnforcementȱActȱ (SAFEȱAct)ȱ onȱ Januaryȱ 15,ȱ 2013.7ȱ Theȱ SAFEȱActȱ11ȱexpandsȱtheȱdefinitionȱofȱprohibitedȱ“assaultȱweapons”ȱbyȱreplacingȱ12ȱtheȱ priorȱ twoȬfeatureȱ testȱwithȱ aȱ stricterȱ oneȬfeatureȱ test.ȱ ȱAsȱ theȱ13ȱnameȱ suggests,ȱ theȱnewȱ testȱdefinesȱ aȱ semiautomaticȱ firearmȱ asȱ aȱ14ȱprohibitedȱ“assaultȱweapon”ȱifȱitȱcontainsȱanyȱoneȱofȱanȱenumeratedȱ15ȱlistȱ ofȱ militaryȬstyleȱ features,ȱ includingȱ aȱ telescopingȱ stock,ȱ aȱ16ȱconspicuouslyȱprotrudingȱpistolȱgrip,ȱaȱthumbholeȱstock,ȱaȱbayonetȱ17ȱmount,ȱaȱflashȱsuppressor,ȱaȱbarrelȱshroud,ȱandȱaȱgrenadeȱlauncher.8ȱ18ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ

6ȱSeeȱDefendants’ȱBr.,ȱNo.ȱ14Ȭ36Ȭcv,ȱatȱ10Ȭ11;ȱDefendants’ȱBr.,ȱNo.ȱ14Ȭ319Ȭcv,ȱatȱ11ȱ&ȱn.3.ȱ

7ȱActȱofȱJan.ȱ15,ȱ2013,ȱch.ȱ1,ȱ2013ȱN.Y.ȱLawsȱ1,ȱamendedȱbyȱActȱofȱMar.ȱ29,ȱ2013,ȱch.ȱ57,ȱpt.ȱFF,ȱ2013ȱN.Y.ȱLawsȱ290,ȱ389.ȱ

8ȱTheȱprohibitedȱfeaturesȱdependȱonȱwhetherȱtheȱsemiautomaticȱweaponȱisȱaȱrifle,ȱpistol,ȱorȱshotgun,ȱthoughȱtheȱlistsȱoverlapȱsignificantly:ȱȱ

“Assaultȱweapon”ȱmeansȱ

ȱ

ȱ

10ȱ

Thisȱ statutoryȱ definitionȱ encompasses,ȱ andȱ therebyȱ bans,ȱ theȱ1ȱsemiautomaticȱweaponȱ usedȱ byȱ theȱmassȬshooterȱ atȱ SandyȱHook.ȱ2ȱNewȱ Yorkȱ lawȱmakesȱ theȱ possession,ȱ manufacture,ȱ transport,ȱ orȱ3ȱdisposalȱ ofȱ anȱ “assaultȱweapon”ȱ aȱ felony.9ȱ Pursuantȱ toȱ theȱ SAFEȱ4ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ(a)ȱaȱsemiautomaticȱrifleȱthatȱhasȱanȱabilityȱtoȱacceptȱaȱdetachableȱ

magazineȱandȱhasȱatȱleastȱoneȱofȱtheȱfollowingȱcharacteristics:ȱ(i)ȱaȱfoldingȱorȱtelescopingȱstock;ȱ(ii)ȱaȱpistolȱgripȱthatȱprotrudesȱconspicuouslyȱbeneathȱtheȱactionȱofȱtheȱweapon;ȱ(iii)ȱaȱthumbholeȱstock;ȱ(iv)ȱaȱsecondȱhandgripȱorȱaȱprotrudingȱgripȱthatȱcanȱbeȱheldȱbyȱtheȱnonȬtriggerȱhand;ȱ(v)ȱaȱbayonetȱmount;ȱ(vi)ȱaȱflashȱsuppressor,ȱmuzzleȱbreak,ȱmuzzleȱcompensator,ȱorȱthreadedȱbarrelȱdesignedȱtoȱaccommodateȱaȱflashȱsuppressor,ȱmuzzleȱbreak,ȱorȱmuzzleȱcompensator;ȱ(vii)ȱaȱgrenadeȱlauncher;ȱorȱ

(b)ȱaȱsemiautomaticȱshotgunȱthatȱhasȱatȱleastȱoneȱofȱtheȱfollowingȱcharacteristics:ȱ(i)ȱaȱfoldingȱorȱtelescopingȱstock;ȱ(ii)ȱaȱthumbholeȱstock;ȱ(iii)ȱaȱsecondȱhandgripȱorȱaȱprotrudingȱgripȱthatȱcanȱbeȱheldȱbyȱtheȱnonȬtriggerȱhand;ȱ(iv)ȱaȱfixedȱmagazineȱcapacityȱinȱexcessȱofȱsevenȱrounds;ȱ(v)ȱanȱabilityȱtoȱacceptȱaȱdetachableȱmagazine;ȱorȱ

(c)ȱaȱsemiautomaticȱpistolȱthatȱhasȱanȱabilityȱtoȱacceptȱaȱdetachableȱmagazineȱandȱhasȱatȱleastȱoneȱofȱtheȱfollowingȱcharacteristics:ȱ(i)ȱaȱfoldingȱorȱtelescopingȱstock;ȱ(ii)ȱaȱthumbholeȱstock;ȱ(iii)ȱaȱsecondȱhandgripȱorȱaȱprotrudingȱgripȱthatȱcanȱbeȱheldȱbyȱtheȱnonȬtriggerȱhand;ȱ(iv)ȱcapacityȱtoȱacceptȱanȱammunitionȱmagazineȱthatȱattachesȱtoȱtheȱpistolȱoutsideȱofȱtheȱpistolȱgrip;ȱ(v)ȱaȱthreadedȱbarrelȱcapableȱofȱacceptingȱaȱbarrelȱextender,ȱflashȱsuppressor,ȱforwardȱhandgrip,ȱorȱsilencer;ȱ(vi)ȱaȱshroudȱthatȱisȱattachedȱto,ȱorȱpartiallyȱorȱcompletelyȱencircles,ȱtheȱbarrelȱandȱthatȱpermitsȱtheȱshooterȱtoȱholdȱtheȱfirearmȱwithȱtheȱnonȬtriggerȱhandȱwithoutȱbeingȱburned;ȱ(vii)ȱaȱmanufacturedȱweightȱofȱfiftyȱouncesȱorȱmoreȱwhenȱtheȱpistolȱisȱunloaded;ȱorȱ(viii)ȱaȱsemiautomaticȱversionȱofȱanȱautomaticȱrifle,ȱshotgunȱorȱfirearmȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ

N.Y.ȱPenalȱLawȱ§ȱ265.00(22)ȱ(emphasisȱsupplied).ȱ9ȱId.ȱ§§ȱ265.02(7),ȱ265.10.ȱȱ

ȱ

11ȱ

Act’sȱ grandfatherȱ clause,ȱ however,ȱ preȬexistingȱ lawfulȱ ownersȱ ofȱ1ȱbannedȱ assaultȱ weaponsȱ mayȱ continueȱ toȱ possessȱ themȱ ifȱ theyȱ2ȱregisterȱthoseȱweaponsȱwithȱtheȱNewȱYorkȱStateȱPolice.10ȱ3ȱ

TheȱSAFEȱActȱalsoȱbansȱmagazinesȱ thatȱ canȱholdȱmoreȱ thanȱ4ȱtenȱ roundsȱ ofȱ ammunitionȱ orȱ thatȱ canȱ beȱ readilyȱ restoredȱ orȱ5ȱconvertedȱ toȱ acceptȱmoreȱ thanȱ tenȱ rounds.11ȱAlthoughȱNewȱ Yorkȱ6ȱhadȱ restrictedȱ possessionȱ ofȱ suchȱmagazinesȱ sinceȱ 2000,ȱ theȱ SAFEȱ7ȱActȱ eliminatedȱ aȱ grandfatherȱ clauseȱ forȱmagazinesȱmanufacturedȱ8ȱbeforeȱSeptemberȱ1994.ȱ9ȱ

Theȱ SAFEȱ Act’sȱ largeȬcapacityȬmagazineȱ banȱ containsȱ anȱ10ȱadditional,ȱuniqueȱprohibitionȱ onȱpossessionȱ ofȱ aȱmagazineȱ loadedȱ11ȱwithȱmoreȱthanȱsevenȱroundsȱofȱammunition.12ȱ(Forȱtheȱpurposeȱofȱ12ȱthisȱdefinition,ȱaȱroundȱisȱaȱsingleȱunitȱofȱammunition.)ȱAsȱoriginallyȱ13ȱenacted,ȱ theȱ SAFEȱ Actȱwouldȱ haveȱ imposedȱ aȱmagazineȱ capacityȱ14ȱrestrictionȱ ofȱ sevenȱ rounds.ȱ Becauseȱ veryȱ fewȱ sevenȬroundȱ15ȱmagazinesȱ areȱmanufactured,ȱ however,ȱ theȱ lawȱwasȱ subsequentlyȱ16ȱamendedȱ toȱ imposeȱaȱ tenȬroundȱ capacityȱ restrictionȱcoupledȱwithȱaȱ17ȱsevenȬroundȱloadȱlimit.ȱThus,ȱasȱamended,ȱtheȱstatuteȱpermitsȱaȱNewȱ18ȱYorkȱgunȱownerȱtoȱpossessȱaȱmagazineȱcapableȱofȱholdingȱupȱtoȱtenȱ19ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ10ȱId.ȱ§ȱ265.00(22)(g)(v).ȱ11ȱId.ȱ§ȱ265.00(23)(a).ȱ12ȱId.ȱ§ȱ265.37.ȱȱ

ȱ

12ȱ

rounds,ȱ butȱ heȱmayȱ notȱ fullyȱ loadȱ itȱ outsideȱ ofȱ aȱ firingȱ rangeȱ orȱ1ȱofficialȱshootingȱcompetition.13ȱȱ2ȱ

III. TheȱConnecticutȱLegislationȱ3ȱ

Severalȱmonthsȱ afterȱNewȱ Yorkȱ passedȱ theȱ SAFEȱ Act,ȱ andȱ4ȱafterȱextensiveȱpublicȱhearingsȱandȱ legislativeȱandȱexecutiveȱstudy,ȱ5ȱConnecticutȱadoptedȱ“AnȱActȱConcerningȱGunȱViolenceȱPreventionȱ6ȱandȱ Children’sȱ Safety”ȱ onȱ Aprilȱ 4,ȱ 2013,ȱ andȱ laterȱ amendedȱ theȱ7ȱstatuteȱ onȱ Juneȱ 18,ȱ 2013.14ȱ Likeȱ itsȱ Newȱ Yorkȱ analogue,ȱ theȱ8ȱConnecticutȱlegislationȱreplacedȱtheȱstate’sȱtwoȬfeatureȱdefinitionȱofȱ9ȱprohibitedȱ“assaultȱweapons”ȱwithȱaȱstricterȱoneȬfeatureȱtest,15ȱusingȱ10ȱaȱ listȱ ofȱmilitaryȬstyleȱ featuresȱ similarȱ toȱNewȱYork’s,ȱ includingȱ aȱ11ȱtelescopingȱstock,ȱaȱ thumbholeȱstock,ȱaȱ forwardȱpistolȱgrip,ȱaȱ flashȱ12ȱsuppressor,ȱ aȱ grenadeȱ launcher,ȱ andȱ aȱ threadedȱ barrelȱ capableȱ ofȱ13ȱacceptingȱaȱ flashȱ suppressorȱorȱ silencer.16ȱUnlikeȱ itsȱcounterpartȱ inȱ14ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ13ȱId.ȱ§ȱ265.20(a)(7Ȭf).ȱ14ȱ2013ȱConn.ȱPub.ȱActȱ13Ȭ3,ȱasȱamendedȱbyȱ2013ȱConn.ȱPub.ȱActȱ13Ȭ220.ȱ15ȱConn.ȱGen.ȱStat.ȱ§ȱ53Ȭ202a(1)(E).ȱ16ȱId.ȱ§§ȱ53Ȭ202a(1)(E),ȱ53Ȭ202b(a)(1),ȱ53Ȭ202c(a).ȱLikeȱNewȱYork’sȱSAFEȱ

Act,ȱConnecticut’sȱstatuteȱdifferentiatesȱamongȱsemiautomaticȱrifles,ȱpistols,ȱandȱshotguns:ȱȱ

“Assaultȱweapon”ȱmeansȱ.ȱ.ȱ.[a]nyȱsemiautomaticȱfirearmȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱthatȱmeetsȱtheȱfollowingȱcriteria:ȱ

(i)ȱAȱsemiautomatic,ȱcenterfireȱrifleȱthatȱhasȱanȱabilityȱtoȱacceptȱaȱdetachableȱmagazineȱandȱhasȱatȱleastȱoneȱofȱtheȱfollowing:ȱ(I)ȱAȱfoldingȱorȱtelescopingȱstock;ȱ(II)ȱAnyȱgripȱofȱtheȱweapon,ȱincludingȱaȱpistolȱgrip,ȱaȱthumbholeȱstock,ȱorȱanyȱotherȱstock,ȱtheȱuseȱofȱwhichȱwouldȱallowȱanȱȱ

ȱ

13ȱ

Newȱ York,ȱ theȱ Connecticutȱ legislationȱ additionallyȱ bansȱ 183ȱ1ȱparticularȱ assaultȱweaponsȱ listedȱ byȱmakeȱ andȱmodel,ȱ asȱwellȱ asȱ2ȱ“copiesȱorȱduplicates”ȱofȱmostȱofȱ thoseȱ firearms.17ȱTheȱConnecticutȱ3ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱindividualȱtoȱgripȱtheȱweapon,ȱresultingȱinȱanyȱfingerȱonȱtheȱtriggerȱhandȱinȱadditionȱtoȱtheȱtriggerȱfingerȱbeingȱdirectlyȱbelowȱanyȱportionȱofȱtheȱactionȱofȱtheȱweaponȱwhenȱfiring;ȱ(III)ȱAȱforwardȱpistolȱgrip;ȱ(IV)ȱAȱflashȱsuppressor;ȱorȱ(V)ȱAȱgrenadeȱlauncherȱorȱflareȱlauncher;ȱorȱȱ

(ii)ȱAȱsemiautomatic,ȱcenterfireȱrifleȱthatȱhasȱaȱfixedȱmagazineȱwithȱtheȱabilityȱtoȱacceptȱmoreȱthanȱtenȱrounds;ȱorȱȱ

(iii)ȱAȱsemiautomatic,ȱcenterfireȱrifleȱthatȱhasȱanȱoverallȱlengthȱofȱlessȱthanȱthirtyȱinches;ȱorȱ

(iv)ȱAȱsemiautomaticȱpistolȱthatȱhasȱanȱabilityȱtoȱacceptȱaȱdetachableȱmagazineȱandȱhasȱatȱleastȱoneȱofȱtheȱfollowing:ȱ(I)ȱAnȱabilityȱtoȱacceptȱaȱdetachableȱammunitionȱmagazineȱthatȱattachesȱatȱsomeȱlocationȱoutsideȱofȱtheȱpistolȱgrip;ȱ(II)ȱAȱthreadedȱbarrelȱcapableȱofȱacceptingȱaȱflashȱsuppressor,ȱforwardȱpistolȱgripȱorȱsilencer;ȱ(III)ȱAȱshroudȱthatȱisȱattachedȱto,ȱorȱpartiallyȱorȱcompletelyȱencircles,ȱtheȱbarrelȱandȱthatȱpermitsȱtheȱshooterȱtoȱfireȱtheȱfirearmȱwithoutȱbeingȱburned,ȱexceptȱaȱslideȱthatȱenclosesȱtheȱbarrel;ȱorȱ(IV)ȱAȱsecondȱhandȱgrip;ȱorȱȱ

(v)ȱAȱsemiautomaticȱpistolȱwithȱaȱfixedȱmagazineȱthatȱhasȱtheȱabilityȱtoȱacceptȱmoreȱthanȱtenȱrounds;ȱorȱ

(vi)ȱAȱsemiautomaticȱshotgunȱthatȱhasȱbothȱofȱtheȱfollowing:ȱ(I)ȱAȱfoldingȱorȱtelescopingȱstock;ȱandȱ(II)ȱAnyȱgripȱofȱtheȱweapon,ȱincludingȱaȱpistolȱgrip,ȱaȱthumbholeȱstock,ȱorȱanyȱotherȱstock,ȱtheȱuseȱofȱwhichȱwouldȱallowȱanȱindividualȱtoȱgripȱtheȱweapon,ȱresultingȱinȱanyȱfingerȱonȱtheȱtriggerȱhandȱinȱadditionȱtoȱtheȱtriggerȱfingerȱbeingȱdirectlyȱbelowȱanyȱportionȱofȱtheȱactionȱofȱtheȱweaponȱwhenȱfiring;ȱorȱ(vii)ȱAȱsemiautomaticȱshotgunȱthatȱhasȱtheȱabilityȱtoȱacceptȱaȱdetachableȱmagazine;ȱorȱ(viii)ȱAȱshotgunȱwithȱaȱrevolvingȱcylinderȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ

Id.ȱ§ȱ53Ȭ202a(1)ȱ(emphasisȱsupplied).ȱ17ȱId.ȱatȱ§ȱ53Ȭ202a(1);ȱseeȱalsoȱPlaintiffs’ȱBr.,ȱNo.ȱ14Ȭ319Ȭcv,ȱatȱ5;ȱDefendants’ȱ

Br.,ȱNo.ȱ14Ȭ319Ȭcv,ȱatȱ14.ȱOfȱtheseȱ183ȱspecificallyȱenumeratedȱprohibitedȱȱ

ȱ

14ȱ

lawȱ makesȱ itȱ aȱ felonyȱ toȱ transport,ȱ import,ȱ sell,ȱ orȱ possessȱ1ȱsemiautomaticȱ“assaultȱweapons,”ȱandȱitȱalsoȱcontainsȱaȱgrandfatherȱ2ȱclauseȱ permittingȱ preȬexistingȱ ownersȱ ofȱ assaultȱ weaponsȱ toȱ3ȱcontinueȱ toȱ possessȱ theirȱ firearmsȱ ifȱ properlyȱ registeredȱwithȱ theȱ4ȱstate.18ȱ5ȱ

Theȱ Juneȱ 2013ȱ amendmentȱ toȱ theȱ Connecticutȱ legislationȱ6ȱcriminalizesȱ theȱ possessionȱ ofȱ “[l]argeȱ capacityȱmagazine[s]”ȱ thatȱ7ȱcanȱhold,ȱorȱcanȱbeȱ“readilyȱrestoredȱorȱconvertedȱtoȱaccept,”ȱmoreȱ8ȱthanȱtenȱroundsȱofȱammunition.19ȱUnlikeȱitsȱNewȱYorkȱcounterpart,ȱ9ȱhowever,ȱ theȱConnecticutȱ legislationȱ containsȱ noȱ additionalȱ “loadȱ10ȱlimit”ȱrule.ȱ11ȱ

IV. ProceduralȱHistoryȱ12ȱ

Plaintiffs—aȱcombinationȱofȱadvocacyȱgroups,ȱbusinesses,ȱandȱ13ȱindividualȱ gunȱ owners—filedȱ suitȱ againstȱ theȱ governorsȱ ofȱ Newȱ14ȱYorkȱandȱConnecticutȱandȱotherȱ stateȱofficials,ȱ firstȱ inȱ theȱWesternȱ15ȱDistrictȱofȱNewȱYorkȱonȱMarchȱ21,ȱ2013ȱandȱ thenȱ inȱ theȱDistrictȱofȱ16ȱConnecticutȱ onȱ Mayȱ 22,ȱ 2013.ȱ Inȱ bothȱ actions,ȱ plaintiffsȱ soughtȱ17ȱdeclaratoryȱ andȱ injunctiveȱ reliefȱ forȱ allegedȱ infringementȱ ofȱ theirȱ18ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱweapons,ȱallȱbutȱoneȱareȱsemiautomaticȱweapons.ȱTheȱsingleȱnonȬsemiautomaticȱfirearmȱisȱtheȱRemingtonȱTacticalȱRifleȱModelȱ7615,ȱaȱpumpȬactionȱrifle.ȱDefendants’ȱBr.,ȱNo.ȱ14Ȭ319Ȭcv,ȱatȱ58.ȱ

18ȱConn.ȱGen.ȱStat.ȱ§ȱ53Ȭ202d(a)(2)(A).ȱ19ȱId.ȱ§ȱ53Ȭ202w(a)(1).ȱAsȱwithȱprohibitedȱfirearms,ȱpreȬbanȱownersȱofȱ

prohibitedȱmagazinesȱcanȱretainȱthemȱifȱregisteredȱwithȱtheȱstate.ȱId.ȱ§ȱ53Ȭ202x(a)(1).ȱ

ȱ

15ȱ

constitutionalȱ rights.ȱ Specifically,ȱ plaintiffsȱ contendedȱ thatȱ theȱ1ȱstatutes’ȱprohibitionsȱonȱsemiautomaticȱassaultȱweaponsȱandȱ largeȬ2ȱcapacityȱ magazinesȱ violateȱ theirȱ Secondȱ Amendmentȱ rights,ȱ andȱ3ȱthatȱ numerousȱ specificȱ provisionsȱ ofȱ eachȱ statuteȱ areȱ4ȱunconstitutionallyȱ vague.ȱ Inȱ theȱ Newȱ Yorkȱ action,ȱ plaintiffsȱ alsoȱ5ȱchallengedȱ theȱ sevenȬroundȱ loadȱ limitȱasȱaȱviolationȱofȱ theȱSecondȱ6ȱAmendment.20ȱ7ȱ

Followingȱ plaintiffs’ȱ motionsȱ forȱ preliminaryȱ injunctions,ȱ8ȱpartiesȱ inȱ bothȱ suitsȱ crossȬmovedȱ forȱ summaryȱ judgment.ȱ Onȱ9ȱDecemberȱ31,ȱ2013,ȱChiefȱ JudgeȱSkretnyȱofȱ theȱWesternȱDistrictȱofȱ10ȱNewȱYorkȱgrantedȱ inȱpartȱandȱdeniedȱ inȱpartȱtheȱcrossȬmotionsȱforȱ11ȱsummaryȱ judgment.21ȱ Specifically,ȱ theȱ Districtȱ Courtȱ foundȱ thatȱ12ȱNewȱYork’sȱbanȱonȱassaultȱweaponsȱandȱ largeȱcapacityȱmagazinesȱ13ȱburdenedȱplaintiffs’ȱSecondȱAmendmentȱrights,ȱbutȱdidȱnotȱviolateȱ14ȱtheȱSecondȱAmendmentȱuponȱapplicationȱofȱsoȬcalledȱ intermediateȱ15ȱscrutiny.22ȱTheȱCourtȱalsoȱheld,ȱhowever,ȱthatȱtheȱsevenȬroundȱloadȱ16ȱlimitȱdidȱnotȱsurviveȱintermediateȱscrutiny.ȱTheȱCourtȱfurtherȱfoundȱ17ȱthatȱ threeȱ specificȱ provisionsȱ wereȱ unconstitutionallyȱ vague,ȱ andȱ18ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ20ȱPlaintiffsȱbroughtȱadditionalȱclaimsȱforȱviolationȱofȱtheȱCommerceȱ

Clauseȱ(inȱtheȱNewȱYorkȱaction)ȱandȱtheȱEqualȱProtectionȱClauseȱ(inȱtheȱConnecticutȱaction).ȱTheȱDistrictȱCourtsȱdismissedȱtheseȱclaims,ȱwhichȱareȱnotȱatȱissueȱonȱappeal.ȱ

21ȱNewȱYorkȱStateȱRifleȱ&ȱPistolȱAss’n,ȱInc.ȱv.ȱCuomoȱ(“NYSRPA”),ȱ990ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ2dȱ349ȱ(W.D.N.Y.ȱ2013).ȱ

22ȱSeeȱpostȱSectionȱV.dȬV.eȱforȱfurtherȱdiscussionȱofȱintermediateȱscrutinyȱanalysis.ȱ

ȱ

16ȱ

henceȱvoid,23ȱbutȱdeniedȱplaintiffs’ȱmotionȱregardingȱtheȱremainingȱ1ȱprovisionsȱchallengedȱforȱvagueness.24ȱInȱsum,ȱChiefȱJudgeȱSkretnyȱ2ȱupheldȱ asȱ constitutional,ȱ uponȱ intermediateȱ scrutiny,ȱ theȱ coreȱ3ȱprovisionsȱ ofȱ Newȱ York’sȱ SAFEȱ Actȱ restrictingȱ semiautomaticȱ4ȱassaultȱ weaponsȱ andȱ largeȬcapacityȱ magazines,ȱ butȱ struckȱ downȱ5ȱcertainȱmarginalȱaspectsȱofȱtheȱlaw.ȱ6ȱ

Onȱ Januaryȱ 30,ȱ 2014,ȱ Judgeȱ Covelloȱ ofȱ theȱ Districtȱ ofȱ7ȱConnecticutȱgrantedȱdefendants’ȱmotionȱ forȱ summaryȱ judgmentȱ inȱ8ȱitsȱentirety.25ȱLikeȱhisȱcounterpartȱinȱNewȱYork,ȱJudgeȱCovelloȱheldȱ9ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ23ȱTheȱthreeȱvoidedȱprovisionsȱofȱNewȱYork’sȱSAFEȱActȱwereȱ(1)ȱtheȱ

prohibitionȱonȱpistolsȱwithȱaȱdetachableȱmagazineȱthatȱareȱ“aȱsemiautomaticȱversionȱofȱanȱautomaticȱrifle,ȱshotgunȱorȱfirearm,”ȱN.Y.ȱPenalȱLawȱ§ȱ265.00(22)(c)(viii);ȱ(2)ȱtheȱidentificationȱofȱtheȱmisspelledȱmilitaryȬstyleȱfeatureȱ“muzzleȱbreak,”ȱid.ȱ§ȱ265.00(22)(a)(vi),ȱwhichȱdefendantsȱconcedeȱhasȱnoȱacceptedȱmeaningȱandȱwasȱintendedȱtoȱreadȱ“muzzleȱbrake,”ȱseeȱDefendants’ȱBr.,ȱNo.ȱ14Ȭ36Ȭcv,ȱatȱ22;ȱandȱ(3)ȱanȱerroneousȱ“andȱif”ȱclauseȱappearingȱinȱN.Y.ȱPenalȱLawȱ§ȱ265.36,ȱwhichȱtheȱDistrictȱCourtȱfoundȱtoȱbeȱ“incompleteȱandȱentirelyȱindecipherable.”ȱNYSRPA,ȱ990ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ2dȱatȱ376.ȱDefendantsȱdoȱnotȱchallengeȱonȱappealȱtheȱDistrictȱCourt’sȱrulingȱonȱthisȱthirdȱ(“andȱif”)ȱprovision.ȱȱ

24ȱAsȱrelevantȱhere,ȱtheȱDistrictȱCourtȱdismissedȱplaintiffs’ȱvaguenessȱclaimsȱasȱtoȱtheȱfollowingȱprovisions:ȱ(1)ȱtheȱprohibitionȱofȱmagazinesȱthatȱ“canȱbeȱreadilyȱrestoredȱorȱconvertedȱtoȱaccept”ȱmoreȱthanȱtenȱammunitionȱrounds,ȱN.Y.ȱPenalȱLawȱ§ȱ265.00(23)(a);ȱ(2)ȱtheȱprohibitionȱonȱsemiautomaticȱshotgunsȱwithȱaȱ“fixedȱmagazineȱcapacityȱinȱexcessȱofȱsevenȱrounds,”ȱid.ȱ§ȱ265.00ȱ(22)(b)(iv);ȱandȱ(3)ȱtheȱexclusionȱfromȱrestrictionȱofȱsemiautomaticȱshotgunsȱ“thatȱcannotȱholdȱmoreȱthanȱfiveȱroundsȱofȱammunitionȱinȱaȱfixedȱorȱdetachableȱmagazine,”ȱid.ȱ§ȱ265.00(22)(g)(iii).ȱTheȱCourtȱalsoȱrejectedȱfourȱadditionalȱvaguenessȱchallengesȱthatȱplaintiffsȱdoȱnotȱpursueȱonȱappeal.ȱSeeȱNYSRPA,ȱ990ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ2dȱatȱ374Ȭ78.ȱ

25ȱShewȱv.ȱMalloy,ȱ994ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ2dȱ234ȱ(D.ȱConn.ȱ2014).ȱȱ

ȱ

17ȱ

thatȱ theȱ Connecticutȱ legislationȱ burdenedȱ plaintiffs’ȱ Secondȱ1ȱAmendmentȱ rights,ȱ appliedȱ intermediateȱ scrutiny,ȱ andȱ concludedȱ2ȱthatȱ theȱprohibitionȱ onȱ semiautomaticȱ assaultȱweaponsȱ andȱ largeȬ3ȱcapacityȱ magazinesȱ wasȱ fullyȱ consistentȱ withȱ theȱ Secondȱ4ȱAmendment.ȱHeȱalsoȱdismissedȱallȱofȱplaintiffs’ȱvaguenessȱclaims.26ȱȱ5ȱ

Plaintiffsȱ thereafterȱ appealed.ȱ Inȱ theȱNewȱYorkȱ actionȱ only,ȱ6ȱdefendantsȱ crossȬappealȱ theȱDistrictȱCourt’sȱ judgmentȱ insofarȱasȱ itȱ7ȱinvalidatedȱ theȱ SAFEȱAct’sȱ sevenȬroundȱ loadȱ limitȱ andȱ voidedȱ asȱ8ȱunconstitutionallyȱ vagueȱ theȱ SAFEȱ Act’sȱ prohibitionsȱ onȱ theȱ9ȱmisspelledȱ “muzzleȱbreak”27ȱ andȱ“semiautomaticȱversion[s]”ȱofȱ anȱ10ȱautomaticȱrifle,ȱshotgun,ȱorȱfirearm.28ȱȱ11ȱ

DISCUSSIONȱ12ȱ

Theseȱappealsȱpresentȱtwoȱquestions:ȱfirst,ȱwhetherȱtheȱSecondȱ13ȱAmendmentȱ permitsȱ theȱ regulationȱ ofȱ theȱ assaultȱ weaponsȱ andȱ14ȱlargeȬcapacityȱ magazinesȱ atȱ issueȱ here;ȱ andȱ second,ȱ whetherȱ theȱ15ȱchallengedȱ provisionsȱ ofȱ theȱ statutesȱ provideȱ constitutionallyȱ16ȱsufficientȱnoticeȱofȱtheȱconductȱproscribed.ȱ17ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ26ȱBecauseȱbothȱjudgesȱresolvedȱtheȱparties’ȱmotionsȱforȱsummaryȱ

judgment,ȱtheyȱsimultaneouslyȱdeniedȱasȱmootȱplaintiffs’ȱrespectiveȱmotionsȱforȱpreliminaryȱinjunctions.ȱ

27ȱN.Y.ȱPenalȱLawȱ§ȱ265.00(22)(a)(vi);ȱseeȱanteȱnoteȱ23ȱandȱaccompanyingȱtext.ȱ

28ȱId.ȱ§ȱ265.00(22)(c)(viii);ȱseeȱanteȱnoteȱ23ȱandȱaccompanyingȱtext.ȱ

ȱ

18ȱ

Weȱreviewȱdeȱnovoȱaȱdistrictȱcourt’sȱorderȱgrantingȱsummaryȱ1ȱjudgment,ȱconstruingȱtheȱevidenceȱinȱtheȱlightȱmostȱfavorableȱtoȱtheȱ2ȱnonȬmovingȱparty.29ȱAsȱ relevantȱhere,ȱweȱalsoȱ“reviewȱdeȱnovoȱ theȱ3ȱdistrictȱ court’sȱ legalȱ conclusions,ȱ includingȱ thoseȱ interpretingȱ andȱ4ȱdeterminingȱtheȱconstitutionalityȱofȱaȱstatute.”30ȱPursuantȱtoȱFederalȱ5ȱRuleȱ ofȱ Civilȱ Procedureȱ 56(a),ȱ summaryȱ judgmentȱ isȱ appropriateȱ6ȱwhereȱ“thereȱ isȱnoȱgenuineȱdisputeȱasȱ toȱanyȱmaterialȱ factȱandȱ theȱ7ȱmovantȱisȱentitledȱtoȱjudgmentȱasȱaȱmatterȱofȱlaw.”ȱȱ8ȱ

V. SecondȱAmendmentȱChallengeȱ9ȱ

Weȱconcludeȱ thatȱ theȱcoreȱchallengedȱprohibitionsȱofȱassaultȱ10ȱweaponsȱ andȱ largeȬcapacityȱmagazinesȱ doȱ notȱ violateȱ theȱ Secondȱ11ȱAmendment.ȱGuidedȱ byȱ theȱ teachingsȱ ofȱ theȱ SupremeȱCourt,ȱ ourȱ12ȱownȱjurisprudence,ȱandȱtheȱexamplesȱprovidedȱbyȱourȱsisterȱcircuits,ȱ13ȱweȱ adoptȱ aȱ twoȬstepȱ analyticalȱ framework,ȱ determiningȱ firstȱ14ȱwhetherȱ theȱ regulatedȱweaponsȱ fallȱwithinȱ theȱ protectionsȱ ofȱ theȱ15ȱSecondȱ Amendmentȱ andȱ thenȱ decidingȱ andȱ applyingȱ theȱ16ȱappropriateȱ levelȱ ofȱ constitutionalȱ scrutiny.ȱ Onlyȱ twoȱ specificȱ17ȱprovisions—NewȱYork’sȱsevenȬroundȱ loadȱ limit,ȱandȱConnecticut’sȱ18ȱprohibitionȱ onȱ theȱ nonȬsemiautomaticȱ Remingtonȱ 7615—areȱ19ȱunconstitutional.ȱ20ȱ

ȱ21ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ29ȱDelaneyȱv.ȱBankȱofȱAmericaȱCorp.,ȱ766ȱF.3dȱ163,ȱ167ȱ(2dȱCir.ȱ2014).ȱȱ30ȱUnitedȱStatesȱv.ȱStewart,ȱ590ȱF.3dȱ93,ȱ109ȱ(2dȱCir.ȱ2009).ȱȱ

ȱ

19ȱ

a. HellerȱandȱMcDonaldȱ1ȱ

Theȱ Secondȱ Amendmentȱ providesȱ thatȱ “[a]ȱ wellȱ regulatedȱ2ȱMilitia,ȱbeingȱnecessaryȱtoȱtheȱsecurityȱofȱaȱfreeȱState,ȱtheȱrightȱofȱtheȱ3ȱpeopleȱ toȱ keepȱ andȱ bearȱ Arms,ȱ shallȱ notȱ beȱ infringed.”31ȱ Ourȱ4ȱanalysisȱ ofȱ thatȱ amendmentȱ beginsȱ withȱ theȱ seminalȱ decisionȱ inȱ5ȱDistrictȱofȱColumbiaȱv.ȱHeller.32ȱInȱHeller,ȱtheȱSupremeȱCourt,ȱbasedȱonȱ6ȱanȱ extensiveȱ textualȱ andȱ historicalȱ analysis,ȱ announcedȱ thatȱ theȱ7ȱSecondȱ Amendment’sȱ operativeȱ clauseȱ codifiedȱ aȱ preȬexistingȱ8ȱ“individualȱ rightȱ toȱ possessȱ andȱ carryȱ weapons.”33ȱ Recognizing,ȱ9ȱhowever,ȱ thatȱ“theȱrightȱsecuredȱbyȱ theȱSecondȱAmendmentȱ isȱnotȱ10ȱunlimited,”ȱHellerȱemphasizedȱthatȱ“theȱrightȱwasȱnotȱaȱrightȱtoȱkeepȱ11ȱandȱcarryȱanyȱweaponȱwhatsoeverȱ inȱanyȱmannerȱwhatsoeverȱandȱ12ȱforȱwhateverȱpurpose.”34ȱ Instead,ȱ theȱSecondȱAmendmentȱprotectsȱ13ȱonlyȱ thoseȱ weaponsȱ “‘inȱ commonȱ use’”ȱ byȱ citizensȱ “forȱ lawfulȱ14ȱpurposesȱlikeȱselfȬdefense.”35ȱȱ15ȱ

Havingȱestablishedȱtheseȱbasicȱprecepts,ȱHellerȱconcludedȱthatȱ16ȱtheȱ Districtȱ ofȱ Columbia’sȱ banȱ onȱ possessionȱ ofȱ handgunsȱ wasȱ17ȱunconstitutionalȱ underȱ theȱ Secondȱ Amendment.36ȱ Theȱ Supremeȱ18ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ31ȱU.S.ȱConst.ȱamend.ȱII.ȱ32ȱ554ȱU.S.ȱ570ȱ(2008).ȱ33ȱId.ȱatȱ592ȱ(emphasisȱsupplied).ȱ34ȱId.ȱatȱ626.ȱ35ȱId.ȱatȱ624ȱ(citingȱUnitedȱStatesȱv.ȱMiller,ȱ307ȱU.S.ȱ174,ȱ179ȱ(1939)).ȱ36ȱHeller,ȱ554ȱU.S.ȱatȱ635.ȱ

ȱ

20ȱ

Courtȱnotedȱ thatȱ“handgunsȱareȱ theȱmostȱpopularȱweaponȱ chosenȱ1ȱbyȱ Americansȱ forȱ selfȬdefenseȱ inȱ theȱ home,”ȱ where,ȱ theȱ Courtȱ2ȱobserved,ȱ“theȱneedȱforȱdefenseȱofȱself,ȱfamily,ȱandȱpropertyȱisȱmostȱ3ȱacute.”37ȱȱ4ȱ

Hellerȱ stoppedȱwellȱ shortȱ ofȱ extendingȱ itsȱ rationaleȱ toȱ otherȱ5ȱfirearmsȱ restrictions.ȱ Indeed,ȱ Hellerȱ explicitlyȱ identifiedȱ asȱ6ȱ“presumptivelyȱ lawful”ȱ suchȱ “regulatoryȱ measures”ȱ asȱ7ȱ“prohibitionsȱ onȱ theȱ possessionȱ ofȱ firearmsȱ byȱ felonsȱ andȱ theȱ8ȱmentallyȱill,ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱlawsȱforbiddingȱtheȱcarryingȱofȱfirearmsȱinȱsensitiveȱ9ȱplacesȱ suchȱ asȱ schoolsȱ andȱ governmentȱ buildings,ȱ [and]ȱ lawsȱ10ȱimposingȱ conditionsȱ andȱ qualificationsȱ onȱ theȱ commercialȱ saleȱ ofȱ11ȱarms.”38ȱMostȱ importantlyȱhere,ȱHellerȱalsoȱendorsedȱ theȱ“historicalȱ12ȱtraditionȱ ofȱ prohibitingȱ theȱ carryingȱ ofȱ dangerousȱ andȱ unusualȱ13ȱweapons.”39ȱ14ȱ

Asideȱ fromȱ theseȱ broadȱ guidelines,ȱ Hellerȱ offeredȱ littleȱ15ȱguidanceȱ forȱ resolvingȱ futureȱ SecondȱAmendmentȱ challenges.ȱTheȱ16ȱCourtȱ didȱ implyȱ thatȱ suchȱ challengesȱ areȱ subjectȱ toȱ oneȱ ofȱ “theȱ17ȱstandardsȱ ofȱ scrutinyȱ thatȱ weȱ haveȱ appliedȱ toȱ enumeratedȱ18ȱconstitutionalȱ rights,”ȱ thoughȱ itȱdeclinedȱ toȱ sayȱwhich,40ȱ acceptingȱ19ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ37ȱId.ȱatȱ628Ȭ29.ȱ38ȱId.ȱatȱ626Ȭ27ȱ&ȱn.26.ȱ39ȱId.ȱatȱ627ȱ(internalȱquotationȱmarksȱomitted).ȱ40ȱId.ȱatȱ628.ȱ

ȱ

21ȱ

thatȱmanyȱapplicationsȱofȱtheȱSecondȱAmendmentȱwouldȱremainȱ“inȱ1ȱdoubt.”41ȱ2ȱ

Thatȱ doubtȱ persistedȱ afterȱ McDonaldȱ v.ȱ Cityȱ ofȱ Chicago,ȱ inȱ3ȱwhichȱ theȱ SupremeȱCourtȱ invalidatedȱmunicipalȱ statutesȱ banningȱ4ȱhandgunsȱ inȱ theȱ home.42ȱMcDonaldȱ wasȱ aȱ landmarkȱ caseȱ inȱ oneȱ5ȱrespect—theȱ Courtȱ heldȱ forȱ theȱ firstȱ timeȱ thatȱ theȱ Fourteenthȱ6ȱAmendmentȱ “incorporates”ȱ theȱ Secondȱ Amendmentȱ againstȱ theȱ7ȱstates.43ȱOtherwise,ȱMcDonaldȱdidȱnotȱexpandȱuponȱHeller’sȱanalysisȱ8ȱandȱ simplyȱ reiteratedȱHeller’sȱassurancesȱ regardingȱ theȱviabilityȱofȱ9ȱmanyȱ gunȬcontrolȱprovisions.44ȱNeitherȱHellerȱnorȱMcDonald,ȱ then,ȱ10ȱdelineatedȱ theȱ preciseȱ scopeȱ ofȱ theȱ Secondȱ Amendmentȱ orȱ theȱ11ȱstandardsȱbyȱwhichȱlowerȱcourtsȱshouldȱassessȱtheȱconstitutionalityȱ12ȱofȱfirearmsȱrestrictions.ȱȱ13ȱ

ȱ14ȱ

ȱ15ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ41ȱId.ȱatȱ635.ȱȱ42ȱ561ȱU.S.ȱ742ȱ(2010).ȱSee,ȱe.g.,ȱJosephȱBlocher,ȱNewȱApproachesȱtoȱOldȱ

QuestionsȱinȱGunȱScholarship,ȱ50ȱTULSAȱL.ȱREV.ȱ477,ȱ478ȱ(2015)ȱ(“HellerȱandȱMcDonaldȱprovokedȱasȱmanyȱquestionsȱasȱtheyȱanswered,”ȱcreatingȱaȱ“resultingȱvoidȱ[that]ȱinvitesȱandȱpracticallyȱdemandsȱmoreȱscholarship.”).ȱ

43ȱSeeȱgenerallyȱLAURENCEȱH.ȱTRIBE,ȱAMERICANȱCONSTITUTIONALȱLAWȱ1317ȱ(3dȱed.ȱ2000)ȱ(describingȱtheȱprocessȱbyȱwhichȱAmendmentsȱinitiallyȱdesignedȱtoȱlimitȱtheȱpowersȱofȱtheȱfederalȱgovernmentȱcameȱtoȱbeȱappliedȱtoȱactionsȱofȱtheȱstates).ȱ

44ȱ561ȱU.S.ȱatȱ786ȱ(opinionȱofȱAlito,ȱJ.).ȱ

ȱ

22ȱ

b. AnalyticalȱRubricȱ1ȱ

LackingȱmoreȱdetailedȱguidanceȱfromȱtheȱSupremeȱCourt,ȱthisȱ2ȱCircuitȱ hasȱ begunȱ toȱ developȱ aȱ frameworkȱ forȱ determiningȱ theȱ3ȱconstitutionalityȱ ofȱ firearmȱ restrictions.45ȱ Itȱ requiresȱ aȱ twoȬstepȱ4ȱinquiry.ȱȱ5ȱ

First,ȱ weȱ considerȱ whetherȱ theȱ restrictionȱ burdensȱ conductȱ6ȱprotectedȱbyȱtheȱSecondȱAmendment.46ȱIfȱtheȱchallengedȱrestrictionȱ7ȱdoesȱ notȱ implicateȱ conductȱ withinȱ theȱ scopeȱ ofȱ theȱ Secondȱ8ȱAmendment,ȱ ourȱ analysisȱ endsȱ andȱ theȱ legislationȱ stands.ȱ9ȱOtherwise,ȱweȱmoveȱtoȱtheȱsecondȱstepȱofȱourȱinquiry,ȱinȱwhichȱweȱ10ȱmustȱdetermineȱandȱapplyȱtheȱappropriateȱlevelȱofȱscrutiny.47ȱ11ȱ

Thisȱ twoȬstepȱ rubricȱ flowsȱ fromȱ theȱ dictatesȱ ofȱ Hellerȱ andȱ12ȱMcDonaldȱandȱourȱownȱprecedentsȱinȱKachalskyȱandȱDecastro.48ȱItȱalsoȱ13ȱbroadlyȱ comportsȱwithȱ theȱ prevailingȱ twoȬstepȱ approachȱ ofȱ otherȱ14ȱcourts,ȱ includingȱ theȱ Third,ȱ Fourth,ȱ Fifth,ȱ Sixth,ȱ Seventh,ȱ Ninth,ȱ15ȱTenth,ȱEleventh,ȱandȱD.C.ȱCircuits,49ȱandȱwithȱtheȱapproachȱusedȱinȱ16ȱ“otherȱareasȱofȱconstitutionalȱlaw.”50ȱ17ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ45ȱSeeȱKachalskyȱv.ȱCty.ȱofȱWestchester,ȱ701ȱF.3dȱ81ȱ(2dȱCir.ȱ2012);ȱUnitedȱ

Statesȱv.ȱDecastro,ȱ682ȱF.3dȱ160ȱ(2dȱCir.ȱ2012).ȱ46ȱKachalsky,ȱ701ȱF.3dȱatȱ93.ȱ47ȱSeeȱid.ȱ48ȱSeeȱanteȱnoteȱ45.ȱ49ȱSeeȱGeorgiaCarry.Org,ȱInc.ȱv.ȱU.S.ȱArmyȱCorpsȱofȱEng’rs,ȱ788ȱF.3dȱ1318,ȱ

1322ȱ(11thȱCir.ȱ2015);ȱUnitedȱStatesȱv.ȱChovan,ȱ735ȱF.3dȱ1127,ȱ1136ȱ(9thȱCir.ȱ2013);ȱȱ

ȱ

23ȱ

c. FirstȱStep:ȱWhetherȱtheȱSecondȱAmendmentȱAppliesȱ1ȱ

Asȱ anȱ initialȱmatter,ȱ then,ȱweȱmustȱ determineȱwhetherȱ theȱ2ȱchallengedȱ legislationȱ impingesȱ uponȱ conductȱ protectedȱ byȱ theȱ3ȱSecondȱ Amendment.ȱ Theȱ Secondȱ Amendmentȱ protectsȱ onlyȱ “theȱ4ȱsortsȱofȱweapons”ȱthatȱareȱ(1)ȱ“inȱcommonȱuse”51ȱandȱ(2)ȱ“typicallyȱ5ȱpossessedȱ byȱ lawȬabidingȱ citizensȱ forȱ lawfulȱ purposes.”52ȱ Weȱ6ȱconsiderȱeachȱrequirementȱinȱturn.ȱ7ȱ

i. CommonȱUseȱ8ȱ

Theȱpartiesȱcontestȱwhetherȱtheȱassaultȱweaponsȱatȱissueȱhereȱ9ȱareȱcommonlyȱowned.ȱPlaintiffsȱargueȱthatȱtheȱweaponsȱatȱissueȱareȱ10ȱownedȱ inȱ largeȱnumbersȱ byȱ lawȬabidingȱAmericans.ȱTheyȱpresentȱ11ȱstatisticsȱ showingȱ thatȱnearlyȱ fourȱmillionȱunitsȱofȱaȱ singleȱassaultȱ12ȱweapon,ȱtheȱpopularȱARȬ15,ȱhaveȱbeenȱmanufacturedȱbetweenȱ1986ȱ13ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱNat’lȱRifleȱAss’nȱofȱAm.,ȱInc.ȱv.ȱBureauȱofȱAlcohol,ȱTobacco,ȱFirearmsȱ&ȱExplosives,ȱ700ȱF.3dȱ185,ȱ194ȱ(5thȱCir.ȱ2012);ȱUnitedȱStatesȱv.ȱGreeno,ȱ679ȱF.3dȱ510,ȱ518ȱ(6thȱCir.ȱ2012);ȱHellerȱv.ȱDistrictȱofȱColumbiaȱ(HellerȱII),ȱ670ȱF.3dȱ1244,ȱ1252ȱ(D.C.ȱCir.ȱ2011);ȱEzellȱv.ȱCityȱofȱChicago,ȱ651ȱF.3dȱ684,ȱ702Ȭ03ȱ(7thȱCir.ȱ2011);ȱUnitedȱStatesȱv.ȱChester,ȱ628ȱF.3dȱ673,ȱ680ȱ(4thȱCir.ȱ2010);ȱUnitedȱStatesȱv.ȱReese,ȱ627ȱF.3dȱ792,ȱ800Ȭ01ȱ(10thȱCir.ȱ2010);ȱUnitedȱStatesȱv.ȱMarzzarella,ȱ614ȱF.3dȱ85,ȱ89ȱ(3dȱCir.ȱ2010).ȱ

50ȱDecastro,ȱ682ȱF.3dȱatȱ167;ȱseeȱHeller,ȱ554ȱU.S.ȱatȱ595;ȱKachalsky,ȱ701ȱF.3dȱatȱ94.ȱȱ

51ȱHeller,ȱ554ȱU.S.ȱatȱ627.ȱ52ȱId.ȱatȱ625.ȱInȱaddition,ȱtheȱweaponsȱmustȱactuallyȱbeȱusedȱlawfully.ȱId.ȱ

Becauseȱtheȱlawsȱatȱissueȱrestrictȱtheȱmereȱpossessionȱofȱassaultȱweapons,ȱandȱnotȱhowȱorȱwhyȱtheyȱareȱused,ȱweȱneedȱnotȱconsiderȱthatȱadditionalȱlimitation.ȱ

ȱ

24ȱ

andȱMarchȱ 2013.53ȱPlaintiffsȱ furtherȱ assertȱ thatȱ onlyȱ 7.5ȱpercentȱ ofȱ1ȱassaultȬweaponȱ ownersȱ areȱ activeȱ lawȱ enforcementȱ officers,54ȱ andȱ2ȱthatȱmostȱ ownersȱ ofȱ assaultȱweaponsȱ ownȱ onlyȱ oneȱ orȱ twoȱ suchȱ3ȱweapons,ȱ suchȱ thatȱ theȱbannedȱ firearmsȱ areȱnotȱ concentratedȱ inȱ aȱ4ȱsmallȱnumberȱofȱhomes,ȱbutȱ ratherȱspreadȱwidelyȱamongȱ theȱgunȬ5ȱowningȱ public.55ȱ Defendantsȱ counterȱ thatȱ assaultȱ weaponsȱ onlyȱ6ȱrepresentȱ aboutȱ twoȱ percentȱ ofȱ theȱ nation’sȱ firearmsȱ (admittedlyȱ7ȱamountingȱ toȱ approximatelyȱ sevenȱ millionȱ guns).56ȱ Moreover,ȱ8ȱdefendantsȱargueȱthatȱtheȱstatisticsȱinflateȱtheȱnumberȱofȱindividualȱ9ȱcivilianȱownersȱbecauseȱmanyȱofȱ theseȱweaponsȱ areȱpurchasedȱbyȱ10ȱlawȱenforcementȱorȱ smuggledȱ toȱ criminals,ȱandȱmanyȱ civilianȱgunȱ11ȱownersȱownȱmultipleȱassaultȱweapons.ȱȱ12ȱ

Thisȱmuchȱ isȱ clear:ȱAmericansȱ ownȱmillionsȱ ofȱ theȱ firearmsȱ13ȱthatȱtheȱchallengedȱlegislationȱprohibits.ȱȱ14ȱ

Theȱ sameȱ isȱ trueȱ ofȱ largeȬcapacityȱmagazines,ȱ asȱdefinedȱbyȱ15ȱtheȱNewȱYorkȱandȱConnecticutȱstatutes.ȱThoughȱfewerȱstatisticsȱareȱ16ȱavailableȱforȱmagazines,ȱthoseȱstatisticsȱsuggestȱthatȱaboutȱ25ȱmillionȱ17ȱlargeȬcapacityȱmagazinesȱwereȱ availableȱ inȱ 1995,ȱ shortlyȱ afterȱ theȱ18ȱfederalȱassaultȱweaponsȱbanȱwasȱenacted,ȱandȱnearlyȱ50ȱmillionȱsuchȱ19ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ53ȱJ.A.,ȱNo.ȱ14Ȭ319Ȭcv,ȱatȱ146.ȱȱ54ȱJ.A.,ȱNo.ȱ14Ȭ36Ȭcv,ȱatȱ162.ȱ55ȱPlaintiffs’ȱReplyȱBr.,ȱNo.ȱ14Ȭ36Ȭcv,ȱatȱ6Ȭ7.ȱ56ȱSeeȱJ.A.,ȱNo.ȱ14Ȭ36Ȭcv,ȱatȱ1091;ȱJ.A.,ȱNo.ȱ14Ȭ319Ȭcv,ȱatȱ2251.ȱ

ȱ

25ȱ

magazines—orȱ nearlyȱ twoȱ largeȬcapacityȱmagazinesȱ forȱ eachȱ gunȱ1ȱcapableȱofȱacceptingȱone—wereȱapprovedȱforȱimportȱbyȱ2000.57ȱȱ2ȱ

Evenȱ acceptingȱ theȱmostȱ conservativeȱ estimatesȱ citedȱbyȱ theȱ3ȱpartiesȱ andȱ byȱ amici,ȱ theȱ assaultȱ weaponsȱ andȱ largeȬcapacityȱ4ȱmagazinesȱatȱ issueȱareȱ“inȱcommonȱuse”ȱasȱ thatȱ termȱwasȱusedȱ inȱ5ȱHeller.ȱ Theȱ D.C.ȱ Circuitȱ reachedȱ theȱ sameȱ conclusionȱ inȱ itsȱwellȬ6ȱreasonedȱdecisionȱinȱHellerȱII,ȱwhichȱupheldȱtheȱconstitutionalityȱofȱaȱ7ȱDistrictȱofȱColumbiaȱgunȬcontrolȱactȱsubstantiallyȱsimilarȱtoȱthoseȱatȱ8ȱissueȱhere.58ȱ9ȱ

Toȱ beȱ sure,ȱ asȱ defendantsȱ note,ȱ theseȱ assaultȱweaponsȱ andȱ10ȱlargeȬcapacityȱ magazinesȱ areȱ notȱ asȱ commonlyȱ ownedȱ asȱ theȱ11ȱhandgunsȱatȱissueȱinȱHeller,ȱwhichȱwereȱ“theȱmostȱpopularȱweaponȱ12ȱchosenȱbyȱAmericansȱforȱselfȬdefenseȱinȱtheȱhome.”59ȱButȱnothingȱinȱ13ȱHellerȱ limitedȱ itsȱ holdingȱ toȱ handguns;ȱ indeed,ȱ theȱ Courtȱ14ȱemphasizedȱ thatȱ”theȱSecondȱAmendmentȱ extends,ȱprimaȱ facie,ȱ toȱ15ȱallȱ instrumentsȱ thatȱ constituteȱ bearableȱ arms,”ȱ notȱ justȱ toȱ aȱ smallȱ16ȱsubset.60ȱ17ȱ

ȱ18ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ57ȱJ.A.,ȱNo.ȱ14Ȭ319Ȭcv,ȱatȱ578.ȱȱ58ȱHellerȱII,ȱ670ȱF.3dȱatȱ1261ȱ(findingȱthatȱtheȱARȬ15ȱandȱmagazinesȱwithȱ

capacitiesȱexceedingȱtenȱroundsȱwereȱinȱ“commonȱuse”ȱasȱdefinedȱbyȱHeller).ȱ59ȱHeller,ȱ554ȱU.S.ȱatȱ629.ȱ60ȱId.ȱatȱ582ȱ(emphasisȱsupplied).ȱȱ

ȱ

26ȱ

ii. TypicalȱPossessionȱ1ȱ

WeȱmustȱnextȱdetermineȱwhetherȱassaultȱweaponsȱandȱlargeȬ2ȱcapacityȱmagazinesȱareȱ“typicallyȱpossessedȱbyȱlawȬabidingȱcitizensȱ3ȱforȱ lawfulȱ purposes.”61ȱWhileȱ “commonȱ use”ȱ isȱ anȱ objectiveȱ andȱ4ȱlargelyȱstatisticalȱinquiry,ȱ“typical[]ȱpossess[ion]”ȱrequiresȱusȱtoȱlookȱ5ȱintoȱbothȱbroadȱpatternsȱofȱuseȱ andȱ theȱ subjectiveȱmotivesȱofȱgunȱ6ȱowners.ȱȱ7ȱ

Theȱ partiesȱ offerȱ competingȱ evidenceȱ aboutȱ theseȱweapons’ȱ8ȱ“typicalȱuse.”ȱPlaintiffsȱsuggestȱthatȱassaultȱweaponsȱareȱamongȱtheȱ9ȱsafestȱ andȱ mostȱ effectiveȱ firearmsȱ forȱ civilianȱ selfȬdefense.62ȱ10ȱDefendantsȱ disagree,ȱ arguingȱ thatȱ theseȱ weaponsȱ areȱ usedȱ11ȱdisproportionatelyȱinȱgunȱcrimes,ȱratherȱthanȱforȱlawfulȱpursuitsȱlikeȱ12ȱselfȬdefenseȱandȱhunting.63ȱȱ13ȱ

Evenȱ ifȱdefendantsȱareȱcorrect,64ȱhowever,ȱ theȱsameȱcouldȱbeȱ14ȱsaidȱ forȱ theȱ handgunsȱ inȱHeller.ȱ Thoughȱ handgunsȱ compriseȱ onlyȱ15ȱaboutȱ oneȬthirdȱ ofȱ theȱ nation’sȱ firearms,ȱ byȱ someȱ estimatesȱ theyȱ16ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ61ȱId.ȱatȱ625.ȱ62ȱJ.A.,ȱNo.ȱ14Ȭ319Ȭcv,ȱatȱ753Ȭ66ȱ(declarationȱofȱballisticsȱresearcher).ȱ63ȱSeeȱDefendants’ȱBr.,ȱNo.ȱ14Ȭ319Ȭcv,ȱatȱ38Ȭ46;ȱseeȱalsoȱJ.A.,ȱNo.ȱ14Ȭ319Ȭcvȱatȱ

1365Ȭ74,ȱ1699Ȭ1715ȱ(affidavitsȱofȱchiefsȱofȱpoliceȱopiningȱthatȱassaultȱweaponsȱmayȱnotȱbeȱwellȱsuitedȱforȱselfȬdefense,ȱespeciallyȱinȱanȱurbanȱenvironment);ȱJ.A.,ȱNo.ȱ14Ȭ319Ȭcv,ȱatȱ1395Ȭ1413.ȱ

64ȱPlaintiffsȱtakeȱissueȱwithȱtheȱresearchȱmethodology,ȱandȱpointȱtoȱstudiesȱunderminingȱtheȱconclusionȱofȱdisproportionateȱuse.ȱSeeȱPlaintiffs’ȱReplyȱBr.,ȱNo.ȱ14Ȭ36Ȭcv,ȱatȱ15Ȭ17;ȱseeȱalsoȱJ.A.,ȱNo.ȱ14Ȭ36Ȭcv,ȱatȱ464Ȭ65,ȱ489Ȭ90.ȱ

ȱ

27ȱ

accountȱforȱ71ȱpercentȱtoȱ83ȱpercentȱofȱtheȱfirearmsȱusedȱinȱmurdersȱ1ȱandȱ 84ȱpercentȱ toȱ 90ȱpercentȱofȱ theȱ firearmsȱusedȱ inȱotherȱviolentȱ2ȱcrimes.65ȱ Thatȱ evidenceȱ ofȱ disproportionateȱ criminalȱ useȱ didȱ notȱ3ȱpreventȱ theȱ Supremeȱ Courtȱ fromȱ holdingȱ thatȱ handgunsȱmeritedȱ4ȱconstitutionalȱprotection.ȱȱ5ȱ

Lookingȱsolelyȱatȱaȱweapon’sȱassociationȱwithȱcrime,ȱ then,ȱ isȱ6ȱinsufficient.ȱ Weȱ mustȱ alsoȱ considerȱ moreȱ broadlyȱ whetherȱ theȱ7ȱweaponȱ isȱ “dangerousȱ andȱ unusual”ȱ inȱ theȱ handsȱ ofȱ lawȬabidingȱ8ȱcivilians.ȱHellerȱexpresslyȱhighlightedȱ“weaponsȱthatȱareȱmostȱusefulȱ9ȱinȱ militaryȱ service,”ȱ suchȱ asȱ theȱ fullyȱ automaticȱ MȬ16ȱ rifle,ȱ asȱ10ȱweaponsȱ thatȱ couldȱ beȱ bannedȱ withoutȱ implicatingȱ theȱ Secondȱ11ȱAmendment.66ȱ Butȱ thisȱ analysisȱ isȱ difficultȱ toȱmanageȱ inȱ practice.ȱ12ȱBecauseȱ theȱ ARȬ15ȱ isȱ “theȱ civilianȱ versionȱ ofȱ theȱmilitary’sȱMȬ16ȱ13ȱrifle,”67ȱ defendantsȱ urgeȱ thatȱ itȱ shouldȱ beȱ treatedȱ identicallyȱ forȱ14ȱSecondȱAmendmentȱpurposes.ȱButȱtheȱSupremeȱCourt’sȱveryȱchoiceȱ15ȱofȱdescriptorȱ forȱ theȱARȬ15—theȱ “civilianȱ version”—couldȱ insteadȱ16ȱimplyȱ thatȱsuchȱgunsȱareȱ“traditionallyȱhaveȱbeenȱwidelyȱacceptedȱ17ȱasȱlawful.”68ȱȱ18ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ65ȱPlaintiffs’ȱReplyȱBr.,ȱNo.ȱ14Ȭ36Ȭcv,ȱatȱ15Ȭ18;ȱseeȱalsoȱHeller,ȱ554ȱU.S.ȱatȱ698ȱ

(Breyer,ȱJ.,ȱdissenting)ȱ(discussingȱsimilarȱstatisticsȱsuggestingȱthatȱhandgunsȱ“appearȱtoȱbeȱaȱveryȱpopularȱweaponȱamongȱcriminals”).ȱ

66ȱ554ȱU.S.ȱatȱ627ȱ(internalȱquotationȱmarksȱomitted).ȱ67ȱStaplesȱv.ȱUnitedȱStates,ȱ511ȱU.S.ȱ600,ȱ603ȱ(1994).ȱ68ȱId.ȱatȱ612.ȱ

ȱ

28ȱ

Ultimately,ȱ then,ȱneitherȱ theȱSupremeȱCourt’sȱ categoriesȱnorȱ1ȱtheȱevidenceȱ inȱ theȱrecordȱcleanlyȱresolvesȱ theȱquestionȱofȱwhetherȱ2ȱsemiautomaticȱ assaultȱweaponsȱ andȱ largeȬcapacityȱmagazinesȱ areȱ3ȱ“typicallyȱpossessedȱbyȱlawȬabidingȱcitizensȱforȱlawfulȱpurposes.”69ȱ4ȱConfrontingȱthisȱrecord,ȱChiefȱJudgeȱSkretnyȱreasonablyȱfoundȱthatȱ5ȱreliableȱempiricalȱevidenceȱofȱlawfulȱpossessionȱforȱlawfulȱpurposesȱ6ȱwasȱ“elusive,”70ȱbeyondȱownershipȱstatistics.71ȱWeȱagree.ȱ7ȱ

InȱtheȱabsenceȱofȱclearerȱguidanceȱfromȱtheȱSupremeȱCourtȱorȱ8ȱstrongerȱevidenceȱinȱtheȱrecord,ȱweȱfollowȱtheȱapproachȱtakenȱbyȱtheȱ9ȱDistrictȱCourtsȱandȱbyȱ theȱD.C.ȱCircuitȱ inȱHellerȱ IIȱandȱassumeȱ forȱ10ȱtheȱ sakeȱ ofȱ argumentȱ thatȱ theseȱ “commonlyȱ used”ȱweaponsȱ andȱ11ȱmagazinesȱareȱalsoȱ“typicallyȱpossessedȱbyȱ lawȬabidingȱcitizensȱforȱ12ȱlawfulȱ purposes.”72ȱ Inȱ short,ȱweȱ proceedȱ onȱ theȱ assumptionȱ thatȱ13ȱtheseȱlawsȱbanȱweaponsȱprotectedȱbyȱtheȱSecondȱAmendment.ȱThisȱ14ȱassumptionȱ isȱwarrantedȱ atȱ thisȱ stage,ȱ because,ȱ asȱ explainedȱ postȱ15ȱSectionȱ V.e,ȱ theȱ statutesȱ atȱ issueȱ nonethelessȱ largelyȱ passȱ16ȱconstitutionalȱmuster.73ȱȱ17ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ69ȱHeller,ȱ554ȱU.S.ȱatȱ625.ȱ70ȱNYSRPA,ȱ990ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ2dȱatȱ365.ȱ71ȱOnȱaȱsubstantiallyȱsimilarȱrecord,ȱJudgeȱCovelloȱofȱtheȱDistrictȱofȱ

Connecticutȱcameȱtoȱtheȱsameȱconclusion,ȱfindingȱonlyȱthatȱtheȱrelevantȱweaponsȱwereȱ“presumably[]ȱusedȱforȱlawfulȱpurposes.”ȱShew,ȱ994ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ2dȱatȱ246ȱ(emphasisȱsupplied).ȱ

72ȱSeeȱHellerȱII,ȱ670ȱF.ȱ3dȱatȱ1260Ȭ61ȱ(quotingȱHeller,ȱ554ȱU.S.ȱatȱ625).ȱ73ȱThoughȱweȱassumeȱwithoutȱdecidingȱthatȱtheȱbulkȱofȱtheȱchallengedȱ

legislationȱisȱentitledȱtoȱSecondȱAmendmentȱprotection,ȱweȱdecideȱasȱmuchȱwithȱȱ

ȱ

29ȱ

d. SecondȱStep:ȱLevelȱofȱScrutinyȱ1ȱ

Havingȱ concludedȱ thatȱ theȱ statutesȱ impingeȱ uponȱ Secondȱ2ȱAmendmentȱ rights,ȱ weȱ mustȱ nextȱ determineȱ andȱ applyȱ theȱ3ȱappropriateȱ levelȱ ofȱ scrutiny.74ȱWeȱ employȱ theȱ familiarȱ “levelsȱ ofȱ4ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱrespectȱtoȱConnecticut’sȱprohibitionȱofȱtheȱRemingtonȱTacticalȱ7615,ȱaȱnonȬsemiautomaticȱpumpȬactionȱrifle.ȱSeeȱDefendants’ȱBr.,ȱNo.ȱ14Ȭ319Ȭcv,ȱatȱ58.ȱȱ

Hellerȱemphasizesȱthatȱtheȱ“theȱSecondȱAmendmentȱextends,ȱprimaȱfacie,ȱtoȱallȱinstrumentsȱthatȱconstituteȱbearableȱarms.”ȱHeller,ȱ554ȱU.S.ȱatȱ582.ȱInȱotherȱwords,ȱitȱidentifiesȱaȱpresumptionȱinȱfavorȱofȱSecondȱAmendmentȱprotection,ȱwhichȱtheȱStateȱbearsȱtheȱinitialȱburdenȱofȱrebutting.ȱSeeȱEzell,ȱ651ȱF.3dȱatȱ702Ȭ03ȱ(“[I]fȱtheȱgovernmentȱcanȱestablishȱthatȱaȱchallengedȱfirearmsȱlawȱregulatesȱactivityȱfallingȱoutsideȱtheȱscopeȱofȱtheȱSecondȱAmendmentȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱthenȱtheȱanalysisȱcanȱstopȱthereȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.”ȱ(emphasisȱsupplied));ȱcf.ȱVirginiaȱv.ȱBlack,ȱ538ȱU.S.ȱ343,ȱ369ȱ(2003)ȱ(Scalia,ȱJ.,ȱconcurringȱinȱpart,ȱconcurringȱinȱtheȱjudgmentȱinȱpart,ȱandȱdissentingȱinȱpart)ȱ(definingȱ“primaȱfacieȱevidence”ȱasȱthatȱwhich,ȱ“ifȱunexplainedȱorȱuncontradicted,ȱisȱsufficientȱtoȱsustainȱaȱjudgmentȱinȱfavorȱofȱtheȱissueȱwhichȱitȱsupports”ȱ(quotingȱBlack’sȱLawȱDictionaryȱ1190ȱ(6thȱed.1990)).ȱBecauseȱtheȱState,ȱfocusedȱonȱsemiautomaticȱweapons,ȱseeȱpostȱnoteȱ112,ȱhasȱfailedȱtoȱmakeȱanyȱargumentȱthatȱthisȱpumpȬactionȱrifleȱisȱdangerous,ȱunusual,ȱorȱotherwiseȱnotȱwithinȱtheȱambitȱofȱSecondȱAmendmentȱprotection,ȱtheȱpresumptionȱthatȱtheȱAmendmentȱappliesȱremainsȱunrebutted.ȱ

Toȱbeȱsure,ȱHellerȱalsoȱnotedȱthatȱcertainȱ“presumptivelyȱlawfulȱregulatoryȱmeasures”ȱostensiblyȱfallȱoutsideȱofȱtheȱSecondȱAmendment’sȱprimaȱfacieȱprotections.ȱId.ȱatȱ627ȱn.26.ȱNonetheless,ȱlikeȱtheȱD.C.ȱCircuitȱinȱHellerȱII,ȱweȱconcludeȱthatȱtheseȱparticularȱrestrictionsȱareȱnotȱentitledȱtoȱ“aȱpresumptionȱofȱvalidity.”ȱHellerȱII,ȱ670ȱF.3dȱatȱ1260ȱ(emphasisȱsupplied).ȱ

WeȱemphasizeȱthatȱourȱholdingȱwithȱrespectȱtoȱtheȱRemingtonȱ7615—atȱbothȱstepsȱofȱourȱanalysis—reflectsȱtheȱState’sȱfailureȱtoȱpresentȱanyȱargumentȱatȱallȱregardingȱthisȱweaponȱorȱothersȱlikeȱit.ȱWeȱdoȱnotȱforecloseȱtheȱpossibilityȱthatȱstatesȱcouldȱinȱtheȱfutureȱpresentȱevidenceȱtoȱsupportȱsuchȱaȱprohibition.ȱ

74ȱPlaintiffs’ȱeffortȱtoȱavoidȱtheȱtwoȬstepȱframeworkȱlaidȱoutȱhereȱisȱunavailing.ȱTheyȱargueȱthatȱtheȱapplicationȱofȱmeansȬendsȱscrutinyȱinȱthisȱcaseȱȱ

ȱ

30ȱ

scrutiny”ȱanalysisȱintroducedȱinȱtheȱfamousȱFootnoteȱFourȱofȱUnitedȱ1ȱStatesȱv.ȱCaroleneȱProductsȱCo.,75ȱandȱbeginȱbyȱaskingȱwhichȱ levelȱofȱ2ȱjudicialȱ“scrutiny”ȱapplies.ȱȱ3ȱ

Thoughȱ Hellerȱ didȱ notȱ specifyȱ theȱ preciseȱ levelȱ ofȱ scrutinyȱ4ȱapplicableȱ toȱ firearmsȱ regulations,ȱ itȱ rejectedȱ mereȱ rationalȱ basisȱ5ȱreviewȱasȱ insufficientȱ forȱ theȱ typeȱofȱ regulationȱ challengedȱ there.76ȱ6ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱwouldȱbeȱanȱ“exerciseȱinȱfutility.”ȱPlaintiff’sȱBr.,ȱNo.ȱ14Ȭ36Ȭcv,ȱatȱ13ȱ(quotingȱKachalsky,ȱ701ȱF.3dȱatȱ89ȱn.9);ȱPlaintiff’sȱBr.,ȱNo.ȱ14Ȭ319Ȭcv,ȱatȱ12ȱ(same).ȱWeȱrejectȱthatȱargument.ȱAsȱplaintiffsȱthemselvesȱconcede,ȱthisȱCourtȱmadeȱveryȱclearȱinȱKachalskyȱthatȱ“Heller’sȱreluctanceȱtoȱannounceȱaȱstandardȱofȱreview”ȱshouldȱnotȱbeȱinterpretedȱasȱaȱ“signalȱthatȱcourtsȱmustȱlookȱsolelyȱtoȱtheȱtext,ȱhistory,ȱandȱtraditionȱofȱtheȱSecondȱAmendmentȱtoȱdetermineȱwhetherȱaȱstateȱcanȱlimitȱtheȱrightȱwithoutȱapplyingȱanyȱsortȱofȱmeansȬendȱscrutiny.”ȱ701ȱF.3dȱatȱ89ȱn.9.ȱOnȱtheȱcontrary,ȱHellerȱindicatedȱthatȱtheȱtypicalȱ“standardsȱofȱscrutiny”ȱanalysisȱshouldȱapplyȱtoȱregulationsȱimpingingȱuponȱSecondȱAmendmentȱrights,ȱbutȱthatȱD.C.’sȱhandgunȱbanȱwouldȱfailȱ“[u]nderȱanyȱofȱtheȱstandardsȱofȱscrutiny.”ȱ554ȱU.S.ȱatȱ628.ȱȱ

75ȱ304ȱU.S.ȱ144,ȱ152ȱn.4ȱ(1938);ȱseeȱHeller,ȱ554ȱU.S.ȱatȱ628ȱn.27.ȱ76ȱ554ȱU.S.ȱatȱ628ȱn.27.ȱAtȱtheȱsameȱtime,ȱHeller’sȱapprovalȱofȱcertainȱ

“presumptivelyȱlawfulȱregulatoryȱmeasures,”ȱid.ȱatȱ627ȱn.ȱ26,ȱhasȱbeenȱconstruedȱbyȱsomeȱtoȱruleȱoutȱstrictȱscrutinyȱasȱwell.ȱIndeed,ȱJusticeȱBreyer’sȱdissentȱstates,ȱwithoutȱoppositionȱfromȱtheȱCourt’sȱopinion,ȱthatȱ“theȱmajorityȱimplicitly,ȱandȱappropriately,ȱreject[ed]ȱth[e]ȱsuggestionȱ[toȱapplyȱstrictȱscrutinyȱtoȱgunȱregulations]ȱbyȱbroadlyȱapprovingȱaȱsetȱofȱlawsȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱwhoseȱconstitutionalityȱunderȱaȱstrictȱscrutinyȱstandardȱwouldȱbeȱfarȱfromȱclear.”ȱId.ȱatȱ688ȱ(Breyer,ȱJ.,ȱdissenting).ȱChiefȱJudgeȱSkretnyȱcitedȱthisȱinterpretationȱwithȱapprobation.ȱNYSRPA,ȱ990ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ2dȱatȱ366.ȱUponȱcloserȱinspection,ȱhowever,ȱweȱthinkȱitȱlikelyȱthatȱtheȱHellerȱmajorityȱidentifiedȱtheseȱ“presumptivelyȱlawful”ȱmeasuresȱinȱanȱattemptȱtoȱclarifyȱtheȱscopeȱofȱtheȱSecondȱAmendment’sȱreachȱinȱtheȱfirstȱplace—theȱfirstȱstepȱofȱourȱframework—butȱnotȱtoȱintimateȱaȱviewȱasȱtoȱwhetherȱstrictȱscrutinyȱappliesȱinȱtheȱsecondȱstep.ȱȱ

ȱ

31ȱ

Atȱtheȱsameȱtime,ȱthisȱCourtȱandȱourȱsisterȱCircuitsȱhaveȱsuggestedȱ1ȱthatȱheightenedȱscrutinyȱ isȱnotȱalwaysȱappropriate.ȱ Inȱdeterminingȱ2ȱwhetherȱ heightenedȱ scrutinyȱ applies,ȱweȱ considerȱ twoȱ factors:ȱ (1)ȱ3ȱ“howȱ closeȱ theȱ lawȱ comesȱ toȱ theȱ coreȱ ofȱ theȱ SecondȱAmendmentȱ4ȱright”ȱandȱ(2)ȱ“theȱseverityȱofȱtheȱlaw’sȱburdenȱonȱtheȱright.”77ȱLawsȱ5ȱthatȱ neitherȱ implicateȱ theȱ coreȱ protectionsȱ ofȱ theȱ Secondȱ6ȱAmendmentȱnorȱ substantiallyȱburdenȱ theirȱexerciseȱdoȱnotȱ receiveȱ7ȱheightenedȱscrutiny.ȱ8ȱ

i. TheȱCoreȱofȱtheȱRightȱ9ȱ

Byȱ theirȱ terms,ȱ theȱ statutesȱatȱ issueȱ implicateȱ theȱcoreȱofȱ theȱ10ȱSecondȱ Amendment’sȱ protectionsȱ byȱ extendingȱ intoȱ theȱ home,ȱ11ȱ“whereȱ theȱ needȱ forȱ defenseȱ ofȱ self,ȱ familyȱ andȱ propertyȱ isȱmostȱ12ȱacute.”78ȱ Semiautomaticȱ assaultȱ weaponsȱ andȱ largeȬcapacityȱ13ȱmagazinesȱareȱcommonlyȱownedȱbyȱmanyȱ lawȬabidingȱAmericans,ȱ14ȱandȱtheirȱcompleteȱprohibition,ȱincludingȱwithinȱtheȱhome,ȱrequiresȱ15ȱusȱtoȱconsiderȱtheȱscopeȱofȱSecondȱAmendmentȱguaranteesȱ“atȱtheirȱ16ȱzenith.”79ȱAtȱtheȱsameȱtime,ȱtheȱregulatedȱweaponsȱareȱnotȱnearlyȱasȱ17ȱpopularlyȱ ownedȱ andȱ usedȱ forȱ selfȬdefenseȱ asȱ theȱ handgun,ȱ thatȱ18ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ77ȱSeeȱEzell,ȱ651ȱF.3dȱatȱ703.ȱȱ78ȱHeller,ȱ554ȱU.S.ȱatȱ628.ȱThisȱconclusionȱisȱpredicatedȱonȱourȱearlierȱ

assumptionȱthatȱtheȱcommonlyȱusedȱfirearmsȱatȱissueȱareȱalsoȱtypicallyȱusedȱforȱselfȬdefenseȱorȱotherȱlawfulȱpurposes,ȱandȱthusȱtheȱprohibitionsȱimplicateȱtheȱSecondȱAmendmentȱright.ȱSeeȱanteȱV.c.ii.ȱȱ

79ȱKachalsky,ȱ701ȱF.3dȱatȱ89.ȱ

ȱ

32ȱ

“quintessentialȱselfȬdefenseȱweapon.”80ȱThusȱtheseȱstatutesȱimplicateȱ1ȱSecondȱAmendmentȱrights,ȱbutȱnotȱtoȱtheȱsameȱextentȱasȱtheȱlawsȱatȱ2ȱissueȱinȱHellerȱandȱMcDonald.ȱ3ȱ

ii. TheȱSeverityȱofȱtheȱBurdenȱ4ȱ

InȱDecastro,ȱweȱ explainedȱ thatȱheightenedȱ scrutinyȱneedȱnotȱ5ȱapplyȱtoȱ“anyȱmarginal,ȱincrementalȱorȱevenȱappreciableȱrestraintȱonȱ6ȱtheȱ rightȱ toȱkeepȱandȱbearȱarms.”81ȱRather,ȱ“heightenedȱscrutinyȱ isȱ7ȱtriggeredȱ onlyȱ byȱ thoseȱ restrictionsȱ thatȱ (likeȱ theȱ completeȱ8ȱprohibitionȱ onȱ handgunsȱ struckȱ downȱ inȱ Heller)ȱ operateȱ asȱ aȱ9ȱsubstantialȱburdenȱonȱ theȱabilityȱofȱ lawȬabidingȱcitizensȱ toȱpossessȱ10ȱandȱuseȱaȱ firearmȱ forȱ .ȱ .ȱ .ȱ lawfulȱpurposes.”82ȱOurȱ laterȱdecisionȱ inȱ11ȱKachalskyȱ confirmedȱ thisȱ approach,ȱ concludingȱ thatȱ “someȱ formȱofȱ12ȱheightenedȱ scrutinyȱ wouldȱ beȱ appropriate”ȱ forȱ regulationsȱ thatȱ13ȱimposeȱaȱ“substantialȱburden”ȱonȱSecondȱAmendmentȱrights.83ȱȱ14ȱ

Theȱpracticeȱofȱapplyingȱheightenedȱscrutinyȱonlyȱtoȱlawsȱthatȱ15ȱ“burdenȱtheȱSecondȱAmendmentȱrightȱsubstantially”ȱis,ȱasȱweȱnotedȱ16ȱinȱ Decastro,ȱ broadlyȱ consistentȱ withȱ ourȱ approachȱ toȱ otherȱ17ȱfundamentalȱconstitutionalȱrights,ȱ includingȱ thoseȱprotectedȱbyȱ theȱ18ȱFirstȱ andȱ Fourteenthȱ Amendments.84ȱ Weȱ typicallyȱ requireȱ aȱ19ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ80ȱHeller,ȱ554ȱU.S.ȱatȱ629.ȱ81ȱDecastro,ȱ682ȱF.3dȱatȱ166.ȱ82ȱId.ȱ(emphasisȱsupplied).ȱ83ȱ701ȱF.3dȱatȱ93.ȱ84ȱDecastro,ȱ682ȱF.3dȱatȱ166Ȭ67ȱ(emphasisȱsupplied).ȱ

ȱ

33ȱ

thresholdȱshowingȱtoȱtriggerȱheightenedȱscrutinyȱofȱlawsȱallegedȱtoȱ1ȱimplicateȱsuchȱconstitutionalȱcontextsȱasȱ takings,ȱvotingȱrights,ȱandȱ2ȱfreeȱspeech.85ȱThoughȱweȱhaveȱhistoricallyȱexpressedȱ“hesitan[ce]ȱtoȱ3ȱimportȱ substantiveȱ Firstȱ Amendmentȱ principlesȱ wholesaleȱ intoȱ4ȱSecondȱAmendmentȱjurisprudence,”86ȱweȱreadilyȱ“consultȱprinciplesȱ5ȱfromȱ otherȱ areasȱ ofȱ constitutionalȱ law,ȱ includingȱ theȱ Firstȱ6ȱAmendment”ȱ inȱdeterminingȱwhetherȱaȱ lawȱ“substantiallyȱburdensȱ7ȱSecondȱAmendmentȱrights.”87ȱȱ8ȱ

Theȱscopeȱofȱ theȱ legislativeȱ restrictionȱandȱ theȱavailabilityȱofȱ9ȱalternativesȱ factorȱ intoȱ ourȱ analysisȱ ofȱ theȱ “degreeȱ toȱ whichȱ theȱ10ȱchallengedȱ lawȱ burdensȱ theȱ right.”88ȱ Noȱ “substantialȱ burden”ȱ11ȱexists—andȱ henceȱ heightenedȱ scrutinyȱ isȱ notȱ triggered—“ifȱ12ȱadequateȱ alternativesȱ remainȱ forȱ lawȬabidingȱ citizensȱ toȱ acquireȱ aȱ13ȱfirearmȱforȱselfȬdefense.”89ȱȱ14ȱ

Theȱ lawsȱ atȱ issueȱ areȱ bothȱ broadȱ andȱ burdensome.ȱ Unlikeȱ15ȱstatutesȱ thatȱ “merelyȱ regulateȱ theȱ mannerȱ inȱ whichȱ personsȱmayȱ16ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ85ȱId.ȱ86ȱKachalsky,ȱ701ȱF.3dȱatȱ91ȱ(emphasisȱinȱoriginal).ȱ87ȱDecastro,ȱ682ȱF.3dȱatȱ167.ȱ88ȱUnitedȱStatesȱv.ȱChester,ȱ628ȱF.3dȱ673,ȱ682ȱ(4thȱCir.ȱ2010).ȱ89ȱDecastro,ȱ682ȱF.3dȱatȱ168;ȱseeȱalsoȱHellerȱII,ȱ670ȱF.3dȱatȱ1262ȱ(drawingȱtheȱ

comparisonȱtoȱFirstȱAmendmentȱspeechȱrestrictions,ȱwherebyȱ“severeȱburdens”ȱthatȱ“don’tȱleaveȱopenȱampleȱalternativeȱchannels”ȱtriggerȱstrictȱscrutiny,ȱwhileȱrestrictionsȱthatȱ“leaveȱopenȱampleȱalternativeȱchannels”ȱareȱmerelyȱ“modestȱburdens”ȱandȱrequireȱonlyȱ“aȱmildȱformȱofȱintermediateȱscrutiny”).ȱȱ

ȱ

34ȱ

exerciseȱ theirȱ Secondȱ Amendmentȱ rights,”ȱ theseȱ lawsȱ imposeȱ anȱ1ȱoutrightȱbanȱstatewide.90ȱTheȱ“absoluteȱprohibition”ȱinstitutedȱinȱbothȱ2ȱstatesȱ thusȱ createsȱ aȱ “seriousȱ encroachment”ȱ onȱ theȱ Secondȱ3ȱAmendmentȱ right.91ȱ Theseȱ statutesȱ areȱ notȱ mereȱ “marginal,ȱ4ȱincrementalȱorȱevenȱappreciableȱrestraint[s]ȱonȱtheȱrightȱtoȱkeepȱandȱ5ȱbearȱ arms.”92ȱ Theyȱ imposeȱ aȱ substantialȱ burdenȱ onȱ Secondȱ6ȱAmendmentȱ rightsȱ andȱ thereforeȱ triggerȱ theȱ applicationȱ ofȱ someȱ7ȱformȱofȱheightenedȱscrutiny.ȱ8ȱ

Heightenedȱ scrutinyȱ needȱ not,ȱ however,ȱ “beȱ akinȱ toȱ strictȱ9ȱscrutinyȱ whenȱ aȱ lawȱ burdensȱ theȱ Secondȱ Amendment”—10ȱparticularlyȱwhenȱthatȱburdenȱdoesȱnotȱconstrainȱtheȱAmendment’sȱ11ȱ“core”ȱ areaȱ ofȱ protection.93ȱ Theȱ instantȱ bansȱ areȱ dissimilarȱ fromȱ12ȱD.C.’sȱunconstitutionalȱprohibitionȱofȱ“anȱentireȱclassȱofȱ ‘arms’ȱthatȱ13ȱisȱ overwhelminglyȱ chosenȱ byȱ Americanȱ societyȱ forȱ [the]ȱ lawfulȱ14ȱpurpose”ȱ ofȱ selfȬdefense.94ȱ Newȱ Yorkȱ andȱ Connecticutȱ haveȱ notȱ15ȱbannedȱ anȱ entireȱ classȱ ofȱ arms.ȱ Indeed,ȱ plaintiffsȱ themselvesȱ16ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ

90ȱChovan,ȱ735ȱF.3dȱatȱ1138.ȱ91ȱEzell,ȱ651ȱF.3dȱatȱ705,ȱ708.ȱ92ȱDecastro,ȱ682ȱF.3dȱatȱ166.ȱTheȱlegislationȱatȱissueȱisȱthusȱeasilyȱ

distinguishedȱfromȱaȱNewȱYorkȱstatuteȱimposingȱaȱgunȬlicensingȱfeeȱofȱ$100ȱperȱyear,ȱwhichȱweȱfoundȱtoȱbeȱnoȱmoreȱthanȱaȱ“marginal,ȱincrementalȱorȱevenȱappreciableȱrestraint”ȱonȱSecondȱAmendmentȱrights.ȱKwongȱv.ȱBloomberg,ȱ723ȱF.3dȱ160,ȱ167ȱ(2dȱCir.ȱ2013).ȱTheȱregulationȱinȱKwongȱinvolvedȱneitherȱtheȱoutrightȱprohibitionȱofȱweaponsȱinȱcommonȱuseȱnorȱanyȱdirectȱlimitationȱonȱtheȱexerciseȱofȱSecondȱAmendmentȱrightsȱwithinȱtheȱhome.ȱ

93ȱKachalsky,ȱ701ȱF.3dȱatȱ93.ȱ94ȱHeller,ȱ554ȱU.S.ȱatȱ628.ȱ

ȱ

35ȱ

acknowledgeȱ thatȱ thereȱ isȱ noȱ classȱ ofȱ firearmsȱ knownȱ asȱ1ȱ“semiautomaticȱ assaultȱ weapons”—aȱ descriptorȱ theyȱ callȱ purelyȱ2ȱpoliticalȱ inȱnature.95ȱPlaintiffsȱnonethelessȱargueȱ thatȱ theȱ legislationȱ3ȱdoesȱ prohibitȱ “firearmsȱ ofȱ aȱ universallyȱ recognizedȱ type—4ȱsemiautomatic.”96ȱNotȱ so.ȱRather,ȱbothȱNewȱYorkȱandȱConnecticutȱ5ȱbanȱonlyȱaȱlimitedȱsubsetȱofȱsemiautomaticȱfirearms,ȱwhichȱcontainȱ6ȱoneȱ orȱmoreȱ enumeratedȱmilitaryȬstyleȱ features.ȱ Asȱ Hellerȱmakesȱ7ȱplain,ȱtheȱfactȱthatȱtheȱstatutesȱatȱissueȱdoȱnotȱbanȱ“anȱentireȱclassȱofȱ8ȱ‘arms’”ȱmakesȱ theȱ restrictionsȱ substantiallyȱ lessȱ burdensome.97ȱ Inȱ9ȱbothȱ states,ȱ citizensȱ mayȱ continueȱ toȱ armȱ themselvesȱ withȱ nonȬ10ȱsemiautomaticȱweaponsȱ orȱwithȱ anyȱ semiautomaticȱ gunȱ thatȱdoesȱ11ȱnotȱcontainȱanyȱofȱtheȱenumeratedȱmilitaryȬstyleȱfeatures.ȱSimilarly,ȱ12ȱwhileȱ citizensȱmayȱ notȱ acquireȱ highȬcapacityȱmagazines,ȱ theyȱ canȱ13ȱpurchaseȱanyȱnumberȱofȱmagazinesȱwithȱaȱcapacityȱofȱtenȱorȱfewerȱ14ȱrounds.ȱ Inȱ sum,ȱ numerousȱ “alternativesȱ remainȱ forȱ lawȬabidingȱ15ȱcitizensȱ toȱ acquireȱaȱ firearmȱ forȱ selfȬdefense.”98ȱWeȱ agreeȱwithȱ theȱ16ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ95ȱPlaintiffs’ȱBr.,ȱNo.ȱ14Ȭ36Ȭcv,ȱatȱ17;ȱPlaintiffs’ȱBr.,ȱNo.ȱ14Ȭ319Ȭcv,ȱatȱ16.ȱ96ȱPlaintiff’sȱBr.,ȱNo.ȱ14Ȭ319Ȭcv,ȱatȱ31.ȱ97ȱSeeȱ554ȱU.S.ȱatȱ628.ȱ98ȱDecastro,ȱ682ȱF.3dȱatȱ168.ȱPlaintiffs’ȱrelatedȱargument—thatȱtheȱ

availabilityȱofȱunbannedȱfirearmsȱ“isȱirrelevantȱunderȱHeller,”ȱseeȱPlaintiffs’ȱBr.,ȱNo.ȱ14Ȭ36Ȭcv,ȱatȱ32—restsȱonȱaȱmisapprehensionȱofȱtheȱSupremeȱCourt’sȱlogic.ȱToȱbeȱsure,ȱHellerȱdidȱindicateȱthatȱ“[i]tȱisȱnoȱanswerȱtoȱsayȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱthatȱitȱisȱpermissibleȱtoȱbanȱtheȱpossessionȱofȱhandgunsȱsoȱlongȱasȱtheȱpossessionȱofȱotherȱfirearmsȱ(i.e.,ȱlongȱguns)ȱisȱallowed.”ȱ554ȱU.S.ȱatȱ629.ȱButȱHellerȱwentȱonȱtoȱexplainȱthatȱhandgunsȱareȱprotectedȱasȱ“theȱmostȱpopularȱweaponȱchosenȱbyȱAmericansȱforȱselfȬdefenseȱinȱtheȱhome.”ȱId.ȱOfȱcourse,ȱtheȱsameȱcannotȱbeȱsaidȱofȱtheȱweaponsȱatȱissueȱhere.ȱHellerȱexplicitlyȱendorsedȱprohibitionsȱagainstȱanyȱ“weaponsȱnotȱȱ

ȱ

36ȱ

D.C.ȱCircuitȱthatȱ“theȱprohibitionȱofȱsemiȬautomaticȱriflesȱandȱlargeȬ1ȱcapacityȱ magazinesȱ doesȱ notȱ effectivelyȱ disarmȱ individualsȱ orȱ2ȱsubstantiallyȱaffectȱtheirȱabilityȱtoȱdefendȱthemselves.”99ȱTheȱburdenȱ3ȱimposedȱbyȱtheȱchallengedȱlegislationȱisȱreal,ȱbutȱitȱisȱnotȱ“severe.”100ȱȱ4ȱ

Accordingly,ȱweȱconcludeȱthatȱintermediate,ȱratherȱthanȱstrict,ȱ5ȱscrutinyȱ isȱappropriate.ȱThisȱconclusionȱcoheresȱnotȱonlyȱwithȱ thatȱ6ȱreachedȱbyȱ theȱD.C.ȱCircuitȱwhenȱconsideringȱ substantiallyȱ similarȱ7ȱgunȬcontrolȱ laws,ȱ butȱ alsoȱwithȱ theȱ analysesȱ undertakenȱ byȱ otherȱ8ȱcourts,ȱmanyȱofȱwhichȱhaveȱ appliedȱ intermediateȱ scrutinyȱ toȱ lawsȱ9ȱimplicatingȱtheȱSecondȱAmendment.101ȱȱ10ȱ

e. ApplicationȱofȱIntermediateȱScrutinyȱ11ȱ

Thoughȱ “intermediateȱ scrutiny”ȱ mayȱ haveȱ differentȱ12ȱconnotationsȱ inȱ differentȱ contexts,102ȱ hereȱ theȱ keyȱ questionȱ isȱ13ȱwhetherȱ theȱ statutesȱ atȱ issueȱ areȱ “substantiallyȱ relatedȱ toȱ theȱ14ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱtypicallyȱpossessedȱbyȱlawȬabidingȱcitizensȱforȱlawfulȱpurposes,”ȱincluding,ȱforȱexample,ȱshortȬbarreledȱshotguns.ȱId.ȱatȱ625.ȱȱOurȱconsiderationȱofȱavailableȱalternativesȱforȱselfȬdefenseȱthusȱsquaresȱwithȱHeller’sȱfocusȱonȱprotectingȱthatȱ“coreȱlawfulȱpurpose”ȱofȱtheȱSecondȱAmendmentȱright.ȱId.ȱatȱ630.ȱ

99ȱHellerȱII,ȱ670ȱF.3dȱatȱ1262.ȱ100ȱSeeȱid.ȱ101ȱSee,ȱe.g.,ȱChovan,ȱ735ȱF.3dȱatȱ1138;ȱNat’lȱRifleȱAss’nȱofȱAm.,ȱ700ȱF.3dȱatȱ

207;ȱChester,ȱ628ȱF.3dȱatȱ683;ȱReese,ȱ627ȱF.3dȱatȱ802;ȱMarzzarella,ȱ614ȱF.3dȱatȱ97.ȱ102ȱErnstȱJ.ȱv.ȱStone,ȱ452ȱF.3dȱ186,ȱ200ȱn.10ȱ(2dȱCir.ȱ2006)ȱ(notingȱthatȱ

intermediateȱscrutinyȱcarriesȱdifferentȱmeaningsȱdependingȱonȱtheȱareaȱofȱlawȱinȱwhichȱitȱarises,ȱandȱthenȱapplyingȱtheȱsameȱdefinitionȱofȱintermediateȱscrutinyȱusedȱhere).ȱ

ȱ

37ȱ

achievementȱofȱanȱimportantȱgovernmentalȱinterest.”103ȱItȱisȱbeyondȱ1ȱcavilȱ thatȱ bothȱ statesȱ haveȱ “substantial,ȱ indeedȱ compelling,ȱ2ȱgovernmentalȱinterestsȱinȱpublicȱsafetyȱandȱcrimeȱprevention.”104ȱWeȱ3ȱneedȱ onlyȱ inquire,ȱ then,ȱ whetherȱ theȱ challengedȱ lawsȱ areȱ4ȱ“substantiallyȱ related”ȱ toȱ theȱ achievementȱ ofȱ thatȱ governmentalȱ5ȱinterest.ȱWeȱconcludeȱthatȱtheȱprohibitionsȱonȱsemiautomaticȱassaultȱ6ȱweaponsȱandȱlargeȬcapacityȱmagazinesȱmeetȱthisȱstandard.ȱ7ȱ

i. Prohibitionȱonȱ“AssaultȱWeapons”ȱ8ȱ

Toȱ surviveȱ intermediateȱ scrutiny,ȱ theȱ “fitȱ betweenȱ theȱ9ȱchallengedȱ regulationȱ [andȱ theȱ governmentȱ interest]ȱ needȱ onlyȱ beȱ10ȱsubstantial,ȱnotȱperfect.”105ȱUnlikeȱ strictȱ scrutinyȱanalysis,ȱweȱneedȱ11ȱnotȱ ensureȱ thatȱ theȱ statuteȱ isȱ “narrowlyȱ tailored”ȱ orȱ theȱ “leastȱ12ȱrestrictiveȱ availableȱ meansȱ toȱ serveȱ theȱ statedȱ governmentalȱ13ȱinterest.”106ȱMoreover,ȱweȱhaveȱobservedȱthatȱstateȱregulationȱofȱtheȱ14ȱrightȱ toȱbearȱarmsȱ“hasȱalwaysȱbeenȱmoreȱ robust”ȱ thanȱanalogousȱ15ȱregulationȱofȱotherȱconstitutionalȱrights.107ȱSoȱlongȱasȱtheȱdefendantsȱ16ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ103ȱKachalsky,ȱ701ȱF.3dȱatȱ96.ȱ104ȱId.ȱatȱ97;ȱseeȱalsoȱSchallȱv.ȱMartin,ȱ467ȱU.S.ȱ253,ȱ264ȱ(1984)ȱ(“Theȱ

legitimateȱandȱcompellingȱstateȱinterestȱinȱprotectingȱtheȱcommunityȱfromȱcrimeȱcannotȱbeȱdoubted.”ȱ(internalȱquotationȱmarksȱomitted)).ȱ

105ȱKachalsky,ȱ701ȱF.3dȱatȱ97ȱ(internalȱquotationȱmarksȱomitted).ȱ106ȱId.ȱ107ȱId.ȱatȱ100.ȱStatesȱareȱpermittedȱtoȱrestrictȱtheȱrightȱtoȱbearȱarmsȱbyȱ

felonsȱandȱtheȱmentallyȱill,ȱwhileȱequivalentȱrestrictionsȱonȱtheȱrightȱtoȱspeechȱorȱreligiousȱfreedomsȱamongȱthoseȱpopulationsȱwouldȱunquestionablyȱbeȱunconstitutional.ȱId.ȱ

ȱ

38ȱ

produceȱ evidenceȱ thatȱ “fairlyȱ support[s]”ȱ theirȱ rationale,ȱ theȱ lawsȱ1ȱwillȱpassȱconstitutionalȱmuster.108ȱ2ȱ

Inȱ makingȱ thisȱ determination,ȱ weȱ affordȱ “substantialȱ3ȱdeferenceȱ toȱ theȱ predictiveȱ judgmentsȱ ofȱ theȱ legislature.”109ȱ Weȱ4ȱremainȱ mindfulȱ that,ȱ “[i]nȱ theȱ contextȱ ofȱ firearmȱ regulation,ȱ theȱ5ȱlegislatureȱ isȱ ‘farȱ betterȱ equippedȱ thanȱ theȱ judiciary’ȱ toȱ makeȱ6ȱsensitiveȱ publicȱ policyȱ judgmentsȱ (withinȱ constitutionalȱ limits)ȱ7ȱconcerningȱ theȱ dangersȱ inȱ carryingȱ firearmsȱ andȱ theȱ mannerȱ toȱ8ȱcombatȱ thoseȱ risks.”110ȱ Ourȱ role,ȱ therefore,ȱ isȱ onlyȱ toȱ assureȱ9ȱourselvesȱ that,ȱ inȱ formulatingȱ theirȱrespectiveȱ laws,ȱNewȱYorkȱandȱ10ȱConnecticutȱhaveȱ“drawnȱreasonableȱinferencesȱbasedȱonȱsubstantialȱ11ȱevidence.”111ȱ12ȱ

Bothȱstatesȱhaveȱdoneȱsoȱwithȱrespectȱtoȱtheirȱprohibitionsȱonȱ13ȱcertainȱsemiautomaticȱfirearms.112ȱAtȱleastȱsinceȱtheȱenactmentȱofȱtheȱ14ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ108ȱCityȱofȱLosȱAngelesȱv.ȱAlamedaȱBooks,ȱInc.,ȱ535ȱU.S.ȱ425,ȱ438ȱ(2002)ȱ

(plurality).ȱ109ȱKachalsky,ȱ701ȱF.3dȱatȱ97ȱ(quotingȱTurnerȱBroad.ȱSys.,ȱInc.ȱv.ȱFed.ȱ

Commc’nsȱComm’n,ȱ520ȱU.S.ȱ180,ȱ195ȱ(1997)ȱ(bracketsȱomitted)).ȱ110ȱKachalsky,ȱ701ȱF.3dȱatȱ97ȱ(quotingȱTurnerȱBroad.ȱSys.,ȱInc.ȱv.ȱFed.ȱ

Commc’nsȱComm’n,ȱ512ȱU.S.ȱ622,ȱ665ȱ(1994))ȱ(opinionȱofȱKennedy,ȱJ.)).ȱ111ȱTurnerȱBroad.ȱSys.,ȱ520ȱU.S.ȱatȱ195.ȱ112ȱThoughȱConnecticut’sȱbanȱonȱsemiautomaticȱfirearmsȱpassesȱ

intermediateȱscrutiny,ȱitsȱprohibitionȱofȱaȱsingleȱnonȬsemiautomaticȱweapon,ȱtheȱRemingtonȱ7615,ȱdoesȱnot.ȱFocusedȱasȱitȱwasȱonȱtheȱrationaleȱforȱbanningȱsemiautomaticȱweapons,ȱConnecticutȱfailsȱtoȱsetȱforthȱtheȱrequisiteȱ“substantialȱevidence”ȱwithȱrespectȱtoȱtheȱpumpȬactionȱRemingtonȱ7615.ȱId.ȱatȱ195;ȱseeȱalsoȱȱ

ȱ

39ȱ

federalȱ assaultȬweaponsȱban,ȱ semiautomaticȱ assaultȱweaponsȱhaveȱ1ȱbeenȱunderstoodȱtoȱposeȱunusualȱrisks.ȱWhenȱused,ȱtheseȱweaponsȱ2ȱtendȱtoȱresultȱinȱmoreȱnumerousȱwounds,ȱmoreȱseriousȱwounds,ȱandȱ3ȱmoreȱ victims.113ȱ Theseȱ weaponsȱ areȱ disproportionatelyȱ usedȱ inȱ4ȱcrime,ȱandȱparticularlyȱinȱcriminalȱmassȱshootingsȱlikeȱtheȱattackȱinȱ5ȱNewtown.114ȱ Theyȱ areȱ alsoȱ disproportionatelyȱ usedȱ toȱ killȱ lawȱ6ȱenforcementȱofficers:ȱoneȱstudyȱshowsȱthatȱbetweenȱ1998ȱandȱ2001,ȱ7ȱassaultȱweaponsȱwereȱusedȱtoȱgunȱdownȱatȱ leastȱtwentyȱpercentȱofȱ8ȱofficersȱkilledȱinȱtheȱlineȱofȱduty.115ȱ9ȱ

Theȱ recordȱ revealsȱ thatȱ defendantsȱ haveȱ tailoredȱ theȱ10ȱlegislationȱatȱissueȱtoȱaddressȱtheseȱparticularlyȱhazardousȱweapons.ȱ11ȱTheȱdangersȱposedȱbyȱsomeȱofȱtheȱmilitaryȬstyleȱfeaturesȱprohibitedȱ12ȱbyȱ theȱ statutes—suchȱ asȱ grenadeȱ launchersȱ andȱ silencers—areȱ13ȱmanifestȱ andȱ incontrovertible.116ȱ Asȱ forȱ theȱ otherȱ enumeratedȱ14ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱanteȱnoteȱ73.ȱAccordingly,ȱweȱholdȱthatȱthisȱsingularȱprovisionȱofȱConnecticut’sȱlegislationȱisȱunconstitutional.ȱ

113ȱSeeȱDefendant’sȱBr.,ȱNo.ȱ14Ȭ36Ȭcv,ȱatȱ48ȱ(quotingȱJ.A.,ȱNo.ȱ14Ȭ36Ȭcv,ȱatȱ733Ȭ34).ȱȱ

114ȱSeeȱid.ȱatȱ49ȱ(citingȱJ.A.,ȱNo.ȱ14Ȭ36Ȭcvȱ565,ȱ727,ȱ729).ȱ115ȱSeeȱJ.A.,ȱNo.ȱ14Ȭ36Ȭcv,ȱatȱ1261ȱ(citingȱViolenceȱPolicyȱCenterȱstudy).ȱ116ȱIndeed,ȱplaintiffsȱhaveȱnotȱseriouslyȱattemptedȱtoȱargue—eitherȱhereȱorȱ

beforeȱtheȱDistrictȱCourt—thatȱsuchȱfeaturesȱareȱprotectedȱbyȱtheȱSecondȱAmendmentȱatȱall,ȱmuchȱlessȱthatȱtheirȱprohibitionȱshouldȱfailȱintermediateȱscrutiny.ȱSeeȱNYSRPA,ȱ990ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ2dȱatȱ369Ȭ70ȱ(“PlaintiffsȱdoȱnotȱexplicitlyȱargueȱthatȱtheȱAct’sȱregulationȱofȱfirearmsȱwithȱ[grenadeȱlaunchers,ȱbayonetȱmounts,ȱorȱsilencers]ȱviolatesȱtheȱSecondȱAmendment.”);ȱcf.ȱNortonȱv.ȱSam’sȱClub,ȱ145ȱF.3dȱ114,ȱ119ȱ(2dȱCir.ȱ1998)ȱ(“Issuesȱnotȱsufficientlyȱarguedȱinȱtheȱbriefsȱareȱconsideredȱwaivedȱandȱnormallyȱwillȱnotȱbeȱaddressedȱonȱappeal.”);ȱUnitedȱȱ

ȱ

40ȱ

militaryȬstyleȱ features—suchȱ asȱ theȱ flashȱ suppressor,ȱ protrudingȱ1ȱgrip,ȱ andȱ barrelȱ shrouds—Newȱ Yorkȱ andȱ Connecticutȱ haveȱ2ȱdetermined,ȱ asȱdidȱ theȱU.S.ȱCongress,ȱ thatȱ theȱ “netȱ effectȱofȱ theseȱ3ȱmilitaryȱcombatȱfeaturesȱisȱaȱcapabilityȱforȱlethality—moreȱwounds,ȱ4ȱmoreȱserious,ȱinȱmoreȱvictims—farȱbeyondȱthatȱofȱotherȱfirearmsȱinȱ5ȱgeneral,ȱ includingȱ otherȱ semiautomaticȱ guns.”117ȱ Indeed,ȱ plaintiffsȱ6ȱexplicitlyȱ contendȱ thatȱ theseȱ featuresȱ improveȱ aȱ firearm’sȱ7ȱ“accuracy,”ȱ “comfort,”ȱ andȱ “utility.”118ȱ Thisȱ circumlocutionȱ is,ȱ asȱ8ȱChiefȱ Judgeȱ Skretnyȱ observed,ȱ aȱmilderȱwayȱ ofȱ sayingȱ thatȱ theseȱ9ȱfeaturesȱmakeȱtheȱweaponsȱmoreȱdeadly.119ȱȱ10ȱ

Theȱ legislationȱ isȱ alsoȱ specificallyȱ targetedȱ toȱ preventȱmassȱ11ȱshootingsȱ likeȱ thatȱ inȱ Newtown,ȱ inȱ whichȱ theȱ shooterȱ usedȱ aȱ12ȱsemiautomaticȱ assaultȱ weapon.ȱ Plaintiffsȱ complainȱ thatȱ massȱ13ȱshootingsȱareȱ“particularlyȱrareȱevents”ȱandȱthus,ȱevenȱifȱsuccessful,ȱ14ȱtheȱ legislationȱ willȱ haveȱ aȱ “minimalȱ impact”ȱ onȱ mostȱ violentȱ15ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱStatesȱv.ȱAmer,ȱ110ȱF.3dȱ873,ȱ879ȱ(2dȱCir.ȱ1997)ȱ(findingȱthatȱdefendantȱforfeitedȱoneȱofȱhisȱconstitutionalȱargumentsȱbyȱfailingȱtoȱraiseȱitȱbeforeȱtheȱDistrictȱCourt).ȱ

117ȱJ.A.,ȱNo.ȱ14Ȭ36Ȭcv,ȱatȱ733Ȭ34.ȱ118ȱPlaintiffs’ȱBr.,ȱNo.ȱ14Ȭ36Ȭcv,ȱatȱ20;ȱPlaintiffs’ȱBr.,ȱNo.ȱ14Ȭ319Ȭcv,ȱatȱ19Ȭ20.ȱ119ȱNYSRPA,ȱ990ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ2dȱatȱ368.ȱ

ȱ

41ȱ

crime.120ȱThatȱmayȱbeȱso.ȱButȱgunȬcontrolȱlegislationȱ“needȱnotȱstrikeȱ1ȱatȱallȱevilsȱatȱtheȱsameȱtime”ȱtoȱbeȱconstitutional.121ȱȱ2ȱ

Defendantsȱ alsoȱhaveȱ adducedȱ evidenceȱ thatȱ theȱ regulationsȱ3ȱwillȱ achieveȱ theirȱ intendedȱ endȱ ofȱ reducingȱ circulationȱ ofȱ assaultȱ4ȱweaponsȱ amongȱ criminals.122ȱ Plaintiffsȱ counter—withoutȱ recordȱ5ȱevidence—thatȱ theȱ statutesȱ willȱ primarilyȱ disarmȱ lawȬabidingȱ6ȱcitizensȱandȱwillȱ thusȱ impairȱ theȱveryȱpublicȬsafetyȱobjectivesȱ theyȱ7ȱwereȱdesignedȱtoȱachieve.123ȱGivenȱtheȱdearthȱofȱevidenceȱthatȱ lawȬ8ȱabidingȱcitizensȱtypicallyȱuseȱtheseȱweaponsȱforȱselfȬdefense,ȱseeȱanteȱ9ȱSectionȱ V.c.ii,ȱ plaintiffs’ȱ concernsȱ areȱ speculativeȱ atȱ best,ȱ andȱ10ȱcertainlyȱnotȱstrongȱenoughȱtoȱovercomeȱtheȱ“substantialȱdeference”ȱ11ȱweȱoweȱ toȱ “predictiveȱ judgmentsȱofȱ theȱ legislature”ȱonȱmattersȱofȱ12ȱpublicȱ safety.124ȱ Theȱmereȱ possibilityȱ thatȱ someȱ subsetȱ ofȱ peopleȱ13ȱintentȱonȱbreakingȱtheȱlawȱwillȱindeedȱignoreȱtheseȱstatutesȱdoesȱnotȱ14ȱmakeȱthemȱunconstitutional.ȱȱ15ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ120ȱPlaintiffs’ȱBr.,ȱNo.ȱ14Ȭ36Ȭcv,ȱatȱ48Ȭ49;ȱPlaintiffs’ȱBr.,ȱNo.ȱ14Ȭ319Ȭcv,ȱatȱ48Ȭ

49.ȱ121ȱNat’lȱRifleȱAss’nȱofȱAm.,ȱ700ȱF.3dȱatȱ211ȱ(quotingȱBuckleyȱv.ȱValeo,ȱ424ȱ

U.S.ȱ1,ȱ105ȱ(1976)).ȱ122ȱSeeȱDefendants’ȱBr.,ȱNo.ȱ14Ȭ319Ȭcv,ȱatȱ71Ȭ75ȱ(citing,ȱinterȱalia,ȱresearchȱ

byȱProf.ȱChristopherȱS.ȱKoper,ȱevaluatingȱtheȱimpactȱofȱtheȱfederalȱassaultȱweaponsȱban,ȱJ.A.,ȱNo.ȱ14Ȭ319Ȭcv,ȱatȱ1404).ȱ

123ȱPlaintiffs’ȱBr.,ȱNo.ȱ14Ȭ36Ȭcv,ȱatȱ45Ȭ46;ȱPlaintiffs’ȱBr.,ȱNo.ȱ14Ȭ319Ȭcv,ȱatȱ45Ȭ46.ȱ

124ȱKachalsky,ȱ701ȱF.3dȱatȱ97ȱ(quotingȱTurnerȱBroad.ȱSys.,ȱ520ȱU.S.ȱatȱ195ȱ(bracketsȱomitted)).ȱ

ȱ

42ȱ

Ultimately,ȱ “[i]tȱ isȱ theȱ legislature’sȱ job,ȱ notȱ ours,ȱ toȱ weighȱ1ȱconflictingȱ evidenceȱ andȱ makeȱ policyȱ judgments.”125ȱ Weȱ mustȱ2ȱmerelyȱ ensureȱ thatȱ theȱ challengedȱ lawsȱ areȱ substantially—evenȱ ifȱ3ȱnotȱperfectly—relatedȱ toȱ theȱarticulatedȱgovernmentalȱ interest.ȱTheȱ4ȱprohibitionȱofȱsemiautomaticȱassaultȱweaponsȱpassesȱthisȱtest.126ȱȱ5ȱ

ii. ProhibitionȱonȱLargeȬCapacityȱMagazinesȱ6ȱ

Theȱ sameȱ logicȱ appliesȱ aȱ fortioriȱ toȱ theȱ restrictionsȱ onȱ largeȬ7ȱcapacityȱ magazines.127ȱ Theȱ recordȱ evidenceȱ suggestsȱ thatȱ largeȬ8ȱcapacityȱmagazinesȱmayȱ“presentȱevenȱgreaterȱdangersȱtoȱcrimeȱandȱ9ȱviolenceȱthanȱassaultȱweaponsȱalone,ȱinȱpartȱbecauseȱtheyȱareȱmoreȱ10ȱprevalentȱandȱcanȱbeȱandȱareȱusedȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱinȱbothȱassaultȱweaponsȱandȱ11ȱnonȬassaultȱ weapons.”128ȱ LargeȬcapacityȱ magazinesȱ areȱ12ȱdisproportionatelyȱ usedȱ inȱ massȱ shootings,ȱ likeȱ theȱ oneȱ inȱ13ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ

125ȱId.ȱatȱ99.ȱ126ȱCf.ȱHellerȱII,ȱ670ȱF.3dȱatȱ1263ȱ(“[T]heȱevidenceȱdemonstratesȱaȱbanȱonȱ

assaultȱweaponsȱisȱlikelyȱtoȱpromoteȱtheȱGovernment’sȱinterestȱinȱcrimeȱcontrolȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.”).ȱAgain,ȱourȱholdingȱisȱlimitedȱinsofarȱasȱitȱdoesȱnotȱapplyȱtoȱConnecticut’sȱprohibitionȱofȱtheȱnonȬsemiautomaticȱRemingtonȱ7615.ȱ

127ȱAmiciȱargueȱthatȱlargeȬcapacityȱmagazinesȱareȱentirelyȱoutsideȱofȱSecondȱAmendmentȱprotectionȱforȱtheȱindependentȱreasonȱthatȱsuchȱmagazinesȱconstituteȱfirearmȱ“accessories”ȱratherȱthanȱprotectedȱ“arms.”ȱSeeȱBr.ȱofȱAmiciȱCuriaeȱLawȱCenterȱToȱPreventȱGunȱViolenceȱandȱNewȱYorkersȱAgainstȱGunȱViolence,ȱNo.ȱ14Ȭ36Ȭcv,ȱatȱ8Ȭ13;ȱBr.ȱofȱAmiciȱCuriaeȱLawȱCenterȱToȱPreventȱGunȱViolence,ȱConnecticutȱAgainstȱGunȱViolence,ȱandȱClevelandȱSchoolȱRemembers,ȱNo.ȱ14Ȭ319Ȭcv,ȱatȱ10Ȭ14.ȱBecauseȱweȱconcludeȱthatȱtheȱprohibitionȱofȱlargeȬcapacityȱmagazinesȱwouldȱsurviveȱtheȱrequisiteȱscrutiny,ȱweȱneedȱnotȱreachȱtheȱmeritsȱofȱthisȱadditionalȱargument.ȱ

128ȱJ.A.,ȱNo.ȱ14Ȭ319Ȭcv,ȱatȱ1400.ȱȱ

ȱ

43ȱ

Newtown,ȱ inȱ whichȱ theȱ shooterȱ usedȱ multipleȱ largeȬcapacityȱ1ȱmagazinesȱtoȱfireȱ154ȱroundsȱinȱlessȱthanȱfiveȱminutes.129ȱLikeȱassaultȱ2ȱweapons,ȱ largeȬcapacityȱ magazinesȱ resultȱ inȱ “moreȱ shotsȱ fired,ȱ3ȱpersonsȱ wounded,ȱ andȱ woundsȱ perȱ victimȱ thanȱ doȱ otherȱ gunȱ4ȱattacks.”130ȱ Professorȱ Christopherȱ Koper,ȱ aȱ firearmsȱ expertȱ reliedȱ5ȱuponȱbyȱallȱpartiesȱinȱbothȱstates,ȱstatedȱthatȱitȱisȱ“particularly”ȱtheȱ6ȱbanȱonȱ largeȬcapacityȱmagazinesȱ thatȱhasȱ theȱgreatestȱ“potentialȱ toȱ7ȱpreventȱandȱlimitȱshootingsȱinȱtheȱstateȱoverȱtheȱlongȬrun.”131ȱȱ8ȱ

Weȱ thereforeȱconcludeȱ thatȱNewȱYorkȱandȱConnecticutȱhaveȱ9ȱadequatelyȱ establishedȱ aȱ substantialȱ relationshipȱ betweenȱ theȱ10ȱprohibitionȱ ofȱ bothȱ semiautomaticȱ assaultȱ weaponsȱ andȱ largeȬ11ȱcapacityȱmagazinesȱ andȱ theȱ important—indeed,ȱ compelling—stateȱ12ȱinterestȱ inȱ controllingȱ crime.ȱ Theseȱ prohibitionsȱ surviveȱ13ȱintermediateȱscrutiny.ȱ14ȱ

iii. SevenȬRoundȱLoadȱLimitȱ15ȱ

Thoughȱtheȱkeyȱprovisionsȱofȱbothȱstatutesȱpassȱconstitutionalȱ16ȱmusterȱonȱthisȱrecord,ȱanotherȱaspectȱofȱNewȱYork’sȱSAFEȱActȱdoesȱ17ȱnot:ȱ theȱ sevenȬroundȱ loadȱ limit,ȱwhichȱmakesȱ itȱ “unlawfulȱ forȱ aȱ18ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ129ȱDefendants’ȱBr.,ȱNo.ȱ14Ȭ319Ȭcv,ȱatȱ11,ȱ38Ȭ39.ȱ130ȱHellerȱII,ȱ670ȱF.3dȱatȱ1263ȱ(internalȱquotationȱmarksȱomitted);ȱseeȱalsoȱ

Defendants’ȱBr.,ȱNo.ȱ14Ȭ36Ȭcv,ȱatȱ59Ȭ60.ȱ131ȱJ.A.,ȱNo.ȱ14Ȭ319Ȭcv,ȱatȱ1410.ȱȱ

ȱ

44ȱ

personȱ toȱknowinglyȱpossessȱanȱammunitionȱ feedingȱdeviceȱwhereȱ1ȱsuchȱdeviceȱcontainsȱmoreȱthanȱsevenȱroundsȱofȱammunition.”132ȱ2ȱ

Asȱnotedȱabove,ȱtheȱsevenȬroundȱloadȱlimitȱwasȱaȱsecondȬbestȱ3ȱsolution.ȱ Newȱ Yorkȱ determinedȱ thatȱ onlyȱ magazinesȱ containingȱ4ȱsevenȱroundsȱorȱfewerȱcanȱbeȱsafelyȱpossessed,ȱbutȱitȱalsoȱrecognizedȱ5ȱthatȱsevenȬroundȱmagazinesȱareȱdifficultȱtoȱobtainȱcommercially.ȱItsȱ6ȱcompromiseȱwasȱtoȱpermitȱgunȱownersȱtoȱuseȱtenȬroundȱmagazinesȱ7ȱifȱtheyȱwereȱloadedȱwithȱsevenȱorȱfewerȱrounds.133ȱȱ8ȱ

Onȱ theȱ recordȱbeforeȱus,ȱweȱcannotȱconcludeȱ thatȱNewȱYorkȱ9ȱhasȱ presentedȱ sufficientȱ evidenceȱ thatȱ aȱ sevenȬroundȱ loadȱ limitȱ10ȱwouldȱ bestȱ protectȱ publicȱ safety.ȱHereȱweȱ areȱ consideringȱ notȱ aȱ11ȱcapacityȱrestriction,ȱbutȱratherȱaȱloadȱlimit.ȱNothingȱinȱtheȱSAFEȱActȱ12ȱwillȱ outlawȱ orȱ reduceȱ theȱ numberȱ ofȱ tenȬroundȱ magazinesȱ inȱ13ȱcirculation.ȱ Itȱ willȱ notȱ decreaseȱ theirȱ availabilityȱ orȱ inȱ anyȱ wayȱ14ȱfrustrateȱtheȱaccessȱofȱthoseȱwhoȱintendȱtoȱuseȱtenȬroundȱmagazinesȱ15ȱforȱmassȱ shootingsȱ orȱ otherȱ crimes.ȱ Itȱ isȱ thusȱ entirelyȱ untetheredȱ16ȱfromȱtheȱstatedȱrationaleȱofȱreducingȱtheȱnumberȱofȱassaultȱweaponsȱ17ȱandȱ largeȱcapacityȱmagazinesȱ inȱcirculation.134ȱNewȱYorkȱhasȱfailedȱ18ȱtoȱ presentȱ evidenceȱ thatȱ theȱmereȱ existenceȱ ofȱ thisȱ loadȱ limitȱwillȱ19ȱconvinceȱ anyȱwouldȬbeȱmalefactorsȱ toȱ loadȱmagazinesȱ capableȱ ofȱ20ȱholdingȱtenȱroundsȱwithȱonlyȱtheȱpermissibleȱseven.ȱȱ21ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ132ȱN.Y.ȱPenalȱLawȱ§ȱ265.37;ȱseeȱanteȱnotesȱ12Ȭ13ȱandȱaccompanyingȱtext.ȱ133ȱSeeȱDefendants’ȱBr.,ȱNo.ȱ14Ȭ36Ȭcv,ȱatȱ15Ȭ16.ȱ134ȱSeeȱid.ȱatȱ55.ȱ

ȱ

45ȱ

Toȱbeȱ sure,ȱ theȱmereȱpossibilityȱofȱ criminalȱdisregardȱofȱ theȱ1ȱlawsȱ doesȱ notȱ forecloseȱ anȱ attemptȱ byȱ theȱ stateȱ toȱ enactȱ firearmȱ2ȱregulations.ȱ Butȱ onȱ intermediateȱ scrutinyȱ review,ȱ theȱ stateȱ cannotȱ3ȱ“getȱ awayȱ withȱ shoddyȱ dataȱ orȱ reasoning.”135ȱ Toȱ surviveȱ4ȱintermediateȱ scrutiny,ȱ theȱ defendantsȱ mustȱ showȱ “reasonableȱ5ȱinferencesȱ basedȱ onȱ substantialȱ evidence”ȱ thatȱ theȱ statutesȱ areȱ6ȱsubstantiallyȱrelatedȱtoȱtheȱgovernmentalȱinterest.136ȱWithȱrespectȱtoȱ7ȱtheȱloadȱlimitȱprovisionȱalone,ȱNewȱYorkȱhasȱfailedȱtoȱdoȱso.ȱ8ȱ

VI. VaguenessȱChallengeȱ9ȱ

Weȱturnȱnowȱtoȱplaintiffs’ȱsecondȱchallengeȱtoȱtheȱNewȱYorkȱ10ȱandȱConnecticutȱ laws—theirȱ claimȱ thatȱprovisionsȱofȱbothȱ statutesȱ11ȱareȱ unconstitutionallyȱ vague.ȱ Theȱ Newȱ Yorkȱ defendantsȱ crossȬ12ȱappealȱChiefȱJudgeȱSkretny’sȱrulingȱthatȱtwoȱprovisionsȱofȱtheȱSAFEȱ13ȱActȱareȱvoidȱbecauseȱofȱvagueness.ȱ14ȱ

a. LegalȱStandardsȱ15ȱ

Groundedȱ inȱ dueȱ processȱ principles,ȱ theȱ voidȬforȬvaguenessȱ16ȱdoctrineȱ providesȱ thatȱ “[n]oȱ oneȱmayȱ beȱ requiredȱ atȱ perilȱ ofȱ life,ȱ17ȱlibertyȱ orȱ propertyȱ toȱ speculateȱ asȱ toȱ theȱ meaningȱ ofȱ penalȱ18ȱstatutes.”137ȱ Theȱ doctrineȱ requiresȱ thatȱ “aȱ penalȱ statuteȱ defineȱ theȱ19ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ135ȱAlamedaȱBooks,ȱ535ȱU.S.ȱatȱ438.ȱ136ȱTurnerȱBroad.ȱSys.,ȱ520ȱU.S.ȱatȱ195ȱ(emphasisȱsupplied).ȱ137ȱCrampȱv.ȱBd.ȱofȱPub.ȱInstruction,ȱ368ȱU.S.ȱ278,ȱ287ȱ(1961);ȱseeȱalsoȱCunneyȱ

v.ȱBd.ȱofȱTrusteesȱofȱVill.ȱofȱGrandȱView,ȱN.Y.,ȱ660ȱF.3dȱ612,ȱ620ȱ(2dȱCir.ȱ2011).ȱ

ȱ

46ȱ

criminalȱoffenseȱwithȱsufficientȱdefinitenessȱthatȱordinaryȱpeopleȱcanȱ1ȱunderstandȱwhatȱ conductȱ isȱprohibitedȱandȱ inȱaȱmannerȱ thatȱdoesȱ2ȱnotȱencourageȱarbitraryȱandȱdiscriminatoryȱenforcement.”138ȱStatutesȱ3ȱcarryingȱ criminalȱ penaltiesȱ orȱ implicatingȱ theȱ exerciseȱ ofȱ4ȱconstitutionalȱ rights,ȱ likeȱ theȱ onesȱ atȱ issueȱ here,ȱ areȱ subjectȱ toȱ aȱ5ȱ“moreȱ stringent”ȱ vaguenessȱ standardȱ thanȱ areȱ civilȱ orȱ economicȱ6ȱregulations.139ȱHowever,ȱ theȱdoctrineȱdoesȱnotȱrequireȱ“‘meticulousȱ7ȱspecificity’”ȱ ofȱ statutes,ȱ recognizingȱ thatȱ “languageȱ isȱ necessarilyȱ8ȱmarkedȱbyȱaȱdegreeȱofȱimprecision.”140ȱ9ȱ

Becauseȱ plaintiffsȱ pursueȱ thisȱ “preȬenforcement”ȱ appealȱ10ȱbeforeȱ theyȱ haveȱ beenȱ chargedȱ withȱ anyȱ violationȱ ofȱ law,ȱ itȱ11ȱconstitutesȱ aȱ “facial,”ȱ ratherȱ thanȱ “asȬapplied,”ȱ challenge.141ȱUnderȱ12ȱtheȱ standardȱ setȱ forthȱ byȱ theȱ Supremeȱ Courtȱ inȱ Unitedȱ Statesȱ v.ȱ13ȱSalerno,ȱ toȱ succeedȱ onȱ aȱ facialȱ challenge,ȱ “theȱ challengerȱ mustȱ14ȱestablishȱ thatȱ noȱ setȱ ofȱ circumstancesȱ existsȱ underȱ whichȱ theȱ Actȱ15ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ138ȱKolenderȱv.ȱLawson,ȱ461ȱU.S.ȱ352,ȱ357ȱ(1983).ȱ139ȱVill.ȱofȱHoffmanȱEstatesȱv.ȱTheȱFlipside,ȱHoffmanȱEstates,ȱInc.,ȱ455ȱU.S.ȱ489,ȱ

498Ȭ99ȱ(1982).ȱ140ȱThibodeauȱv.ȱPortuondo,ȱ486ȱF.3dȱ61,ȱ66ȱ(2dȱCir.ȱ2007)ȱ(quotingȱGraynedȱ

v.ȱCityȱofȱRockford,ȱ408ȱU.S.ȱ104,ȱ110ȱ(1972)).ȱ141ȱSeeȱRichmondȱBoroȱGunȱClub,ȱInc.ȱv.ȱCityȱofȱNewȱYork,ȱ97ȱF.3dȱ681,ȱ685Ȭ86ȱ

(2dȱCir.ȱ1996).ȱ

ȱ

47ȱ

wouldȱ beȱ valid.”142ȱAsȱ aȱ result,ȱ aȱ facialȱ challengeȱ toȱ aȱ legislativeȱ1ȱenactmentȱisȱ“theȱmostȱdifficultȱchallengeȱtoȱmountȱsuccessfully.”143ȱȱ2ȱ

Seekingȱtoȱavoidȱthisȱprohibitivelyȱhighȱbar,ȱplaintiffsȱurgeȱusȱ3ȱtoȱ followȱ theȱ differentȱ approachȱ thatȱ aȱ pluralityȱ ofȱ theȱ Supremeȱ4ȱCourtȱtookȱinȱCityȱofȱChicagoȱv.ȱMorales.144ȱInȱthatȱcase,ȱthreeȱJusticesȱ5ȱheldȱ thatȱ aȱ criminalȱ lawȱ lackingȱ aȱ mensȱ reaȱ requirementȱ andȱ6ȱburdeningȱaȱconstitutionalȱrightȱ“isȱsubjectȱtoȱfacialȱattack”ȱ“[w]henȱ7ȱvaguenessȱpermeatesȱtheȱtextȱofȱsuchȱaȱlaw.”145ȱThisȱCourt,ȱhowever,ȱ8ȱhasȱ determinedȱ that,ȱ becauseȱ theȱ testȱ setȱ forthȱ byȱ theȱ Moralesȱ9ȱpluralityȱhasȱnotȱbeenȱadoptedȱbyȱtheȱSupremeȱCourtȱasȱaȱwhole,ȱweȱ10ȱareȱ notȱ requiredȱ toȱ applyȱ it.146ȱ Weȱ haveȱ previouslyȱ declinedȱ toȱ11ȱspecifyȱaȱpreferenceȱ forȱeitherȱ test,147ȱandȱweȱneedȱnotȱdoȱ soȱhere,ȱ12ȱbecauseȱtheȱchallengedȱprovisionsȱareȱsufficientlyȱclearȱtoȱsurviveȱaȱ13ȱfacialȱchallengeȱunderȱeitherȱapproach.ȱȱ14ȱ

ȱ15ȱ

ȱ16ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ142ȱ481ȱU.S.ȱ739,ȱ745ȱ(1987)ȱ(emphasisȱsupplied).ȱ143ȱId.ȱ144ȱ527ȱU.S.ȱ41ȱ(1999);ȱseeȱalsoȱPlaintiffs’ȱBr.,ȱNo.ȱ14Ȭ319Ȭcv,ȱatȱ52Ȭ54;ȱ

Plaintiffs’ȱBr.,ȱNo.ȱ14Ȭ36Ȭcv,ȱatȱ52Ȭ56.ȱ145ȱ527ȱU.S.ȱatȱ55.ȱ146ȱUnitedȱStatesȱv.ȱRybicki,ȱ354ȱF.3dȱ124,ȱ131Ȭ32ȱ(2dȱCir.ȱ2003)ȱ(enȱbanc).ȱȱ147ȱId.ȱatȱ132ȱn.3.ȱ

ȱ

48ȱ

b. Applicationȱ1ȱ

i. ȱ“Canȱbeȱreadilyȱrestoredȱorȱconvertedȱtoȱaccept”ȱȱ2ȱ

Bothȱ theȱNewȱYorkȱandȱConnecticutȱ statutesȱ criminalizeȱ theȱ3ȱpossessionȱofȱmagazinesȱ thatȱ“canȱbeȱreadilyȱrestoredȱorȱconvertedȱ4ȱtoȱ accept”ȱmoreȱ thanȱ tenȱ roundsȱ ofȱ ammunition.148ȱ Inȱ bothȱ suits,ȱ5ȱplaintiffsȱallegeȱthatȱtheȱphraseȱ isȱunconstitutionallyȱvagueȱbecauseȱ6ȱwhetherȱaȱmagazineȱ“canȱbeȱreadilyȱrestoredȱorȱconverted”ȱdependsȱ7ȱuponȱ theȱ knowledge,ȱ skill,ȱ andȱ toolsȱ availableȱ toȱ theȱ particularȱ8ȱrestorer,ȱandȱtheȱstatutesȱareȱsilentȱonȱtheseȱdetails.149ȱ9ȱ

Thisȱ statutoryȱ languageȱ datesȱ atȱ leastȱ toȱ theȱ 1994ȱ federalȱ10ȱassaultȬweaponsȱbanȱandȱlaterȱappearedȱinȱNewȱYork’sȱ2000ȱlaw.ȱAsȱ11ȱChiefȱ Judgeȱ Skretnyȱnoted,ȱ thereȱ isȱnoȱ recordȱ evidenceȱ thatȱ itȱhasȱ12ȱgivenȱriseȱ toȱconfusionȱatȱanyȱ timeȱ inȱ theȱpastȱ twoȱdecades.150ȱThisȱ13ȱCourtȱfoundȱaȱsimilarȱphraseȱinȱanotherȱgunȱ law—“mayȱreadilyȱbeȱ14ȱconverted”—toȱ beȱ “sufficientlyȱ definite”ȱ asȱ toȱ provideȱ “clear[]ȱ15ȱwarn[ing]”ȱ ofȱ itsȱmeaning.151ȱ Plaintiffs’ȱ relianceȱ onȱ aȱ SixthȱCircuitȱ16ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ148ȱN.Y.ȱPenalȱLawȱ§§ȱ265.00(23),ȱ265.02(8),ȱ265.36;ȱConn.ȱGen.ȱStat.ȱ§ȱ53Ȭ

202w(a)(1).ȱ149ȱPlaintiffs’ȱBr.,ȱNo.ȱ14Ȭ36Ȭcv,ȱatȱ58Ȭ59;ȱPlaintiffs’ȱBr.,ȱNo.ȱ14Ȭ319Ȭcv,ȱatȱ58Ȭ

60.ȱ150ȱNYSRPA,ȱ990ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ2dȱatȱ376.ȱ151ȱU.S.ȱv.ȱ16,179ȱMolsoȱItalianȱ.22ȱCaliberȱWinleeȱDerringerȱConvertibleȱStarterȱ

Guns,ȱ443ȱF.2dȱ463,ȱ464Ȭ65ȱ(2dȱCir.ȱ1971)ȱ(rejectingȱaȱvaguenessȱchallengeȱinȱaȱcivilȱforfeitureȱcontext,ȱandȱfindingȱthatȱtheȱphraseȱclearlyȱmeantȱaȱgunȱ“whichȱcanȱbeȱconvertedȱbyȱaȱrelativelyȱsimpleȱoperationȱtakingȱonlyȱaȱfewȱminutes”).ȱ

ȱ

49ȱ

caseȱ thatȱ interpretedȱaȱdifferentȱphrase—”mayȱbeȱrestored”ȱwithoutȱ1ȱtheȱmodifierȱ“readily”—isȱinapposite.152ȱ2ȱ

Plaintiffs’ȱ purportedȱ concern—thatȱ thisȱ provisionȱ mightȱ beȱ3ȱunfairlyȱ usedȱ toȱ prosecuteȱ anȱ ordinaryȱ citizenȱ forȱ owningȱ aȱ4ȱmagazineȱthatȱonlyȱaȱgunsmithȱequippedȱwithȱtechnicalȱknowledgeȱ5ȱandȱ specializedȱ toolsȱ couldȱ “readilyȱ convert”153—isȱ implausible.ȱ6ȱShouldȱsuchȱaȱprosecutionȱeverȱoccur,ȱtheȱdefendantȱcouldȱbringȱanȱ7ȱ“asȱapplied”ȱvaguenessȱchallenge,ȱgroundedȱinȱtheȱfactsȱandȱcontextȱ8ȱofȱ aȱ particularȱ setȱ ofȱ charges.ȱ Thatȱ improbableȱ scenarioȱ cannot,ȱ9ȱhowever,ȱadequatelyȱ supportȱ theȱ facialȱ challengeȱplaintiffsȱattemptȱ10ȱtoȱbringȱhere.ȱȱ11ȱ

Inȱ sum,ȱ weȱ affirmȱ theȱ judgmentsȱ ofȱ bothȱ Districtȱ Courtsȱ12ȱfindingȱthatȱthisȱphraseȱisȱnotȱunconstitutionallyȱvague.ȱ13ȱ

ii. CapacityȱofȱTubularȱMagazinesȱ14ȱ

TheȱNewȱYorkȱ plaintiffsȱ contendȱ theȱ SAFEȱAct’sȱ tenȬroundȱ15ȱmagazineȱ restriction154ȱ isȱ vagueȱ insofarȱ asȱ itȱ extendsȱ toȱ tubularȱ16ȱmagazines,ȱtheȱcapacityȱofȱwhichȱvariesȱaccordingȱtoȱtheȱsizeȱofȱtheȱ17ȱparticularȱshellsȱ thatȱareȱ loaded.ȱThisȱchallengeȱ failsȱasȱaȱ thresholdȱ18ȱmatterȱ forȱ theȱreasonsȱstatedȱbyȱ theȱDistrictȱCourt:ȱ theȱprovisionȱ isȱ19ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ152ȱPlaintiffs’ȱBr.,ȱNo.ȱ14Ȭ36Ȭcv,ȱatȱ58;ȱPlaintiffs’ȱBr.,ȱNo.ȱ14Ȭ319Ȭcv,ȱatȱ58Ȭ59;ȱ

seeȱPeoplesȱRightsȱOrg.,ȱInc.ȱv.ȱCityȱofȱColumbus,ȱ152ȱF.3dȱ522,ȱ537ȱ(6thȱCir.ȱ1998).ȱ153ȱSeeȱPlaintiffs’ȱBr.,ȱNo.ȱ14Ȭ36Ȭcv,ȱatȱ58Ȭ59;ȱPlaintiffs’ȱBr.,ȱNo.ȱ14Ȭ319Ȭcv,ȱatȱ

58Ȭ59.ȱ154ȱN.Y.ȱPenalȱLawȱ§ȱ265.00(23).ȱ

ȱ

50ȱ

onlyȱ potentiallyȱ vagueȱwhenȱ appliedȱ toȱ aȱ specificȱ (nonȬstandard)ȱ1ȱuse,ȱ andȱ henceȱ isȱ neitherȱ vagueȱ inȱ allȱ circumstancesȱ (asȱ requiredȱ2ȱunderȱ Salerno)ȱ norȱ permeatedȱwithȱ vaguenessȱ (asȱ requiredȱ byȱ theȱ3ȱMoralesȱplurality).ȱMoreover,ȱlikeȱtheȱ“readilyȱconverted”ȱlanguage,ȱ4ȱthisȱ capacityȱ restrictionȱ wasȱ alsoȱ includedȱ inȱ theȱ 1994ȱ federalȱ5ȱassaultȬweaponsȱ ban,ȱ withoutȱ anyȱ recordȱ evidenceȱ ofȱ confusionȱ6ȱduringȱtheȱensuingȱdecades.ȱ7ȱ

iii. “CopiesȱorȱDuplicates”ȱ8ȱ

Plaintiffsȱ challengeȱ theȱ Connecticutȱ statute’sȱ definitionȱ ofȱ9ȱassaultȱweaponȱtoȱincludeȱcertainȱspecifiedȱfirearmsȱandȱanyȱ“copiesȱ10ȱorȱ duplicatesȱ thereofȱwithȱ theȱ capabilityȱ of”ȱ theȱ listedȱmodels.155ȱ11ȱTheyȱargueȱ thatȱ theȱprovisionȱprovidesȱ inadequateȱnoticeȱofȱwhichȱ12ȱfirearmsȱinȱparticularȱareȱprohibited.ȱȱ13ȱ

Weȱreviewȱtheȱstatutoryȱlanguageȱwithinȱitsȱcontext,ȱrelyingȱifȱ14ȱnecessaryȱ onȱ theȱ canonsȱ ofȱ statutoryȱ constructionȱ andȱ legislativeȱ15ȱhistory.156ȱInȱtheȱcontextȱofȱtheȱlegislationȱasȱaȱwhole,ȱthisȱ“copiesȱorȱ16ȱduplicates”ȱ languageȱ isȱ notȱ unconstitutionallyȱ vague.ȱAllȱ firearmsȱ17ȱthatȱtheȱstatuteȱprohibitsȱbyȱmodelȱnameȱalsoȱexhibitȱatȱleastȱoneȱofȱ18ȱtheȱprohibitedȱmilitaryȬstyleȱfeatures.157ȱHence,ȱtheȱstatuteȱprovidesȱ19ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ155ȱConn.ȱGen.ȱStat.ȱ§ȱ53Ȭ202a(1)(B)Ȭ(D).ȱ156ȱCommackȱSelfȬServiceȱKosherȱMeats,ȱInc.ȱv.ȱHooker,ȱ680ȱF.3dȱ194,ȱ213ȱ(2dȱ

Cir.ȱ2012).ȱ157ȱTheȱConnecticutȱlegislationȱprohibitedȱonlyȱaȱsingleȱfirearm,ȱtheȱ

Remingtonȱ7615,ȱwhichȱlackedȱmilitaryȬstyleȱfeatures.ȱBecauseȱweȱhaveȱalreadyȱheldȱthatȱConnecticut’sȱbanȱonȱtheȱRemingtonȱ7615ȱisȱunconstitutional,ȱseeȱanteȱȱ

ȱ

51ȱ

twoȱ independentȱmeansȱbyȱwhichȱ anȱ individualȱmayȱdetermineȱ ifȱ1ȱhisȱ firearmȱ isȱprohibited:ȱheȱmayȱ consultȱ theȱ listȱofȱ illegalȱmodelsȱ2ȱand,ȱifȱstillȱconcernedȱthatȱtheȱfirearmȱmayȱbeȱanȱunlawfulȱ“copyȱorȱ3ȱduplicate,”ȱ heȱmayȱ crossȬreferenceȱ theȱ listȱ ofȱ prohibitedȱmilitaryȬ4ȱstyleȱfeatures.ȱȱ5ȱ

Inȱ thisȱ manner,ȱ theȱ Connecticutȱ legislationȱ avoidsȱ theȱ6ȱdeficiencyȱofȱanȱassaultȬweaponsȱbanȱstruckȱdownȱbyȱaȱsisterȱCircuitȱ7ȱasȱ unconstitutionallyȱ vagueȱ inȱ Springfieldȱ Armory,ȱ Inc.ȱ v.ȱ Cityȱ ofȱ8ȱColumbus.158ȱInȱSpringfield,ȱtheȱmunicipalȱordinanceȱatȱ issueȱdefinedȱ9ȱassaultȱ weaponsȱ simplyȱ byȱ namingȱ 46ȱ individualȱ modelsȱ andȱ10ȱextendingȱ theȱprohibitionȱ toȱweaponsȱwithȱ“slightȱmodificationsȱorȱ11ȱenhancements”ȱ toȱ theȱ listedȱ firearms.ȱ Theȱ SixthȱCircuitȱ explainedȱ12ȱthatȱtheȱordinanceȱwasȱinvalidȱbecauseȱitȱ“outlaw[ed]ȱcertainȱbrandȱ13ȱnamesȱ withoutȱ includingȱ withinȱ theȱ prohibitionȱ similarȱ assaultȱ14ȱweaponsȱofȱtheȱsameȱtype,ȱfunctionȱorȱcapabilityȱ[and]ȱ .ȱ .ȱ .ȱwithoutȱ15ȱprovidingȱ anyȱ explanationȱ forȱ itsȱ selectionsȱ [ofȱ prohibitedȱ16ȱfirearms].”159ȱTheȱSixthȱCircuitȱfoundȱitȱsignificantȱthatȱtheȱordinanceȱ17ȱofferedȱnoȱ“explanationȱforȱdraftingȱtheȱordinanceȱinȱtermsȱofȱbrandȱ18ȱnameȱ ratherȱ thanȱ genericȱ typeȱ orȱ categoryȱ ofȱ weapon.”160ȱ Inȱ theȱ19ȱinstantȱ case,ȱ byȱ contrast,ȱ Connecticutȱ hasȱ providedȱ notȱ onlyȱ anȱ20ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱnotesȱ73ȱandȱ112,ȱplaintiffs’ȱchallengeȱtoȱtheȱ“copiesȱorȱduplicates”ȱprovisionȱisȱmootȱregardingȱcopiesȱorȱduplicatesȱofȱtheȱRemingtonȱ7615ȱitself.ȱȱ

158ȱ29ȱF.3dȱ250,ȱ252ȱ(6thȱCir.ȱ1994).ȱ159ȱId.ȱ160ȱId.ȱ

ȱ

52ȱ

itemizedȱlistȱofȱprohibitedȱmodelsȱbutȱalsoȱtheȱmilitaryȬstyleȱfeaturesȱ1ȱtest,ȱ whichȱ functionsȱ asȱ anȱ explanationȱ ofȱ theȱ “genericȱ typeȱ orȱ2ȱcategoryȱofȱweapon”ȱoutlawed.ȱ3ȱ

Weȱ thereforeȱ agreeȱwithȱ Judgeȱ Covelloȱ thatȱ theȱ “copiesȱ orȱ4ȱduplicate”ȱ provisionȱ ofȱ theȱ Connecticutȱ statuteȱ atȱ issueȱ hereȱ isȱ5ȱsufficientlyȱdefiniteȱtoȱsurviveȱaȱvoidȬforȬvaguenessȱchallenge.ȱ6ȱ

iv. “Version”ȱ7ȱ

Weȱ applyȱ similarȱ logicȱ toȱ ourȱ analysisȱ ofȱ Newȱ York’sȱ8ȱprohibitionȱ ofȱ semiautomaticȱ pistolsȱ thatȱ areȱ “semiautomaticȱ9ȱversion[s]ȱofȱanȱautomaticȱrifle,ȱshotgunȱorȱ firearm.”161ȱInȱ thisȱcase,ȱ10ȱChiefȱ JudgeȱSkretnyȱheldȱ thatȱ theȱprovisionȱwasȱunconstitutionallyȱ11ȱvague,ȱ reasoningȱ thatȱ “anȱ ordinaryȱ personȱ cannotȱ knowȱwhetherȱ12ȱanyȱsingleȱsemiautomaticȱpistolȱisȱaȱ‘version’ȱofȱanȱautomaticȱone.”162ȱ13ȱTheȱDistrictȱCourtȱ alsoȱ expressedȱ concernȱ thatȱ theȱ lackȱ ofȱ criteriaȱ14ȱmightȱencourageȱarbitraryȱandȱdiscriminatoryȱenforcement.163ȱ15ȱ

Weȱdisagree.ȱTheȱ SAFEȱAct’sȱ terminologyȱhasȱ beenȱusedȱ inȱ16ȱmultipleȱ stateȱ andȱ federalȱ firearmsȱ statutes,ȱ includingȱ theȱ 1994ȱ17ȱfederalȱ assaultȬweaponsȱ ban,ȱ asȱ wellȱ asȱ inȱ governmentȱ reports,ȱ18ȱjudicialȱdecisions,ȱandȱpublishedȱbooks.164ȱPlaintiffsȱhaveȱshownȱnoȱ19ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ161ȱN.Y.ȱPenalȱLawȱ§ȱ265.00(22)(c)(viii).ȱȱ162ȱNYSRPA,ȱ990ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ2dȱatȱ377.ȱ163ȱId.ȱ164ȱDefendants’ȱBr.,ȱNo.ȱ14Ȭ36Ȭcv,ȱatȱ81Ȭ83.ȱ

ȱ

53ȱ

evidenceȱofȱ confusionȱarisingȱ fromȱ thisȱ longȬstandingȱ formulation.ȱ1ȱThoughȱ plaintiffsȱ areȱ correctȱ that,ȱ asȱ aȱ generalȱ proposition,ȱ2ȱrepetitionȱ doesȱ notȱ saveȱ aȱ vagueȱ term,ȱ inȱ theȱ particularȱ3ȱcircumstancesȱ presentedȱ here—repeatedȱ useȱ forȱ decades,ȱwithoutȱ4ȱevidenceȱ ofȱ mischiefȱ orȱ misunderstanding—suggestsȱ thatȱ theȱ5ȱlanguageȱ isȱ comprehensible.ȱ Further,ȱ theȱ SAFEȱ Actȱ providesȱ6ȱadditionalȱnoticeȱofȱprohibitedȱconductȱbyȱrequiringȱtheȱcreationȱofȱaȱ7ȱwebsiteȱ listingȱ unlawfulȱ weaponsȱ andȱ containingȱ additionalȱ8ȱinformation.165ȱ If,ȱ inȱ fact,ȱ asȱ theȱDistrictȱCourtȱ fears,ȱ thisȱ languageȱ9ȱresultsȱ inȱarbitraryȱandȱdiscriminatoryȱ enforcement,ȱ thoseȱ chargedȱ10ȱunderȱ theȱ statuteȱcanȱandȱ shouldȱ seekȱ recourseȱ inȱanȱ“asȱapplied”ȱ11ȱchallenge.ȱWeȱcannotȱconclude,ȱhowever,ȱthatȱtheȱprovisionȱisȱvagueȱ12ȱinȱ allȱ circumstancesȱ orȱpermeatedȱwithȱ vaguenessȱ onȱ itsȱ face.ȱWeȱ13ȱthereforeȱreverseȱsoȱmuchȱofȱtheȱDistrictȱCourt’sȱ judgmentȱasȱholdsȱ14ȱNewȱYorkȱPenalȱLawȱ§ȱ265.00(22)(c)(viii)ȱvoidȱbecauseȱofȱvagueness.ȱ15ȱ

v. “MuzzleȱBreak”ȱȱ16ȱ

Finally,ȱ Chiefȱ Judgeȱ Skretnyȱ alsoȱ struckȱ downȱ asȱ17ȱimpermissiblyȱvagueȱaȱprovisionȱofȱNewȱYork’sȱSAFEȱActȱthatȱlistedȱ18ȱamongȱprohibitedȱmilitaryȬstyleȱ featuresȱ suchȱmuzzleȱ attachmentsȱ19ȱasȱ “aȱ flashȱ suppressor,ȱ muzzleȱ break,ȱ muzzleȱ compensator,ȱ orȱ20ȱthreadedȱbarrelȱdesignedȱtoȱaccommodateȱaȱflashȱsuppressor,ȱmuzzleȱ21ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ165ȱN.Y.ȱPenalȱLawȱ§ȱ400.00(16Ȭa)(b).ȱTheȱNewȱYorkȱStateȱPoliceȱalsoȱ

maintainsȱaȱtelephoneȱlineȱtoȱanswerȱtheȱquestionsȱofȱgunȱowners.ȱSeeȱDefendants’ȱReplyȱBr.,ȱNo.ȱ14Ȭ36Ȭcv,ȱatȱ26.ȱ

ȱ

54ȱ

break,ȱorȱmuzzleȱ compensator.”166ȱAllȱpartiesȱ agreeȱ thatȱ aȱ “muzzleȱ1ȱbrake”ȱ isȱ aȱ firearmȱ attachmentȱ thatȱ reducesȱ recoil.ȱ However,ȱ theȱ2ȱSAFEȱActȱmisspelledȱtheȱtermȱasȱ“muzzleȱbreak.”ȱOnȱtheȱbasisȱofȱthisȱ3ȱmisspelling,ȱ theȱ Districtȱ Courtȱ heldȱ theȱ referencesȱ toȱ muzzleȱ4ȱ“breaks”ȱtoȱbeȱunconstitutionallyȱvague,ȱreasoningȱthatȱ“anȱordinaryȱ5ȱpersonȱ cannotȱ beȱ ‘informedȱ asȱ toȱ whatȱ theȱ Stateȱ commandsȱ orȱ6ȱforbids.’”167ȱ7ȱ

Thisȱis,ȱinȱourȱview,ȱanȱoverstatement.ȱBecauseȱtheȱmisspelledȱ8ȱhomophoneȱ “muzzleȱbreak”ȱhasȱnoȱ acceptedȱmeaning,ȱ thereȱ isȱnoȱ9ȱmeaningfulȱ riskȱ thatȱaȱpartyȱmightȱ confuseȱ theȱ legislature’sȱ intent.ȱ10ȱFurther,ȱitsȱplacementȱwithinȱaȱlistȱofȱmuzzleȱattachmentsȱmakesȱtheȱ11ȱmisspelledȱ term’sȱmeaningȱevenȱclearer.ȱWhatȱ isȱmore,ȱbecauseȱtheȱ12ȱadjacentȱstatutoryȱtermȱ“muzzleȱcompensator”ȱisȱsynonymousȱwithȱ13ȱmuzzleȱ brake,ȱ andȱ thusȱ independentlyȱ coversȱ theȱ prohibitedȱ14ȱconduct,ȱ thisȱ issueȱ isȱ ofȱ littleȱ moment.ȱ Nonetheless,ȱ vaguenessȱ15ȱdoctrineȱrequiresȱonlyȱthatȱtheȱstatuteȱprovideȱ“sufficientlyȱdefiniteȱ16ȱwarningȱasȱ toȱ theȱproscribedȱconductȱwhenȱmeasuredȱbyȱcommonȱ17ȱunderstandingȱ andȱ practices.”168ȱ Thisȱ provisionȱ hasȱ doneȱ so.ȱ18ȱAccordingly,ȱweȱreverseȱsoȱmuchȱofȱtheȱDistrictȱCourt’sȱjudgmentȱasȱ19ȱholdsȱ Newȱ Yorkȱ Penalȱ Lawȱ §ȱ 265.00(22)(a)(vi)ȱ unconstitutionallyȱ20ȱvague.ȱ21ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ166ȱN.Y.ȱPenalȱLawȱ§ȱ265.00(22)(a)(vi)ȱ(emphasisȱsupplied).ȱ167ȱNYSRPA,ȱ990ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ2dȱatȱ377ȱ(quotingȱCunney,ȱ660ȱF.3dȱatȱ620).ȱ168ȱUnitedȱStatesȱv.ȱFarhane,ȱ634ȱF.3dȱ127,ȱ139ȱ(2dȱCir.ȱ2011)ȱ(internalȱ

quotationȱmarksȱomitted).ȱȱ

ȱ

55ȱ

CONCLUSIONȱ1ȱ

ȱ Toȱsummarize,ȱweȱholdȱasȱfollows:ȱ2ȱ

(1) TheȱcoreȱprohibitionsȱbyȱNewȱYorkȱandȱConnecticutȱofȱ3ȱassaultȱweaponsȱ andȱ largeȬcapacityȱmagazinesȱ doȱ notȱ4ȱviolateȱtheȱSecondȱAmendment.ȱȱ5ȱ

(a) Weȱ assumeȱ thatȱ theȱmajorityȱ ofȱ theȱ prohibitedȱ6ȱconductȱ fallsȱ withinȱ theȱ scopeȱ ofȱ Secondȱ7ȱAmendmentȱ protections.ȱ Theȱ statutesȱ areȱ8ȱappropriatelyȱevaluatedȱunderȱ theȱ constitutionalȱ9ȱstandardȱ ofȱ “intermediateȱ scrutiny”—thatȱ is,ȱ10ȱwhetherȱ theyȱ areȱ “substantiallyȱ relatedȱ toȱ theȱ11ȱachievementȱ ofȱ anȱ importantȱ governmentalȱ12ȱinterest.”ȱ13ȱ

(b) Becauseȱtheȱprohibitionsȱareȱsubstantiallyȱrelatedȱ14ȱtoȱtheȱimportantȱgovernmentalȱinterestsȱofȱpublicȱ15ȱsafetyȱ andȱ crimeȱ reduction,ȱ theyȱ passȱ16ȱconstitutionalȱmuster.ȱȱ17ȱ

Weȱ thereforeȱ AFFIRMȱ theȱ relevantȱ portionsȱ ofȱ theȱ18ȱjudgmentsȱofȱtheȱWesternȱDistrictȱofȱNewȱYorkȱandȱtheȱ19ȱDistrictȱ ofȱ Connecticutȱ insofarȱ asȱ theyȱ upheldȱ theȱ20ȱconstitutionalityȱofȱstateȱprohibitionsȱonȱsemiautomaticȱ21ȱassaultȱweaponsȱandȱlargeȬcapacityȱmagazines.ȱ22ȱ

(2) Weȱ holdȱ thatȱ theȱ specificȱ prohibitionȱ onȱ theȱ nonȬ23ȱsemiautomaticȱRemingtonȱ7615ȱfallsȱwithinȱtheȱscopeȱofȱ24ȱ

ȱ

56ȱ

SecondȱAmendmentȱ protectionȱ andȱ subsequentlyȱ failsȱ1ȱintermediateȱ scrutiny.ȱAccordingly,ȱweȱREVERSEȱ thatȱ2ȱlimitedȱ portionȱ ofȱ theȱ judgmentȱ ofȱ theȱ Districtȱ ofȱ3ȱConnecticut.ȱ Inȱ doingȱ so,ȱ weȱ emphasizeȱ theȱ limitedȱ4ȱnatureȱ ofȱ ourȱ holdingȱwithȱ respectȱ toȱ theȱ Remingtonȱ5ȱ7615,ȱinȱthatȱitȱmerelyȱreflectsȱtheȱpresumptionȱrequiredȱ6ȱbyȱ theȱ SupremeȱCourtȱ inȱDistrictȱ ofȱColumbiaȱ v.ȱHellerȱ7ȱthatȱ theȱ Secondȱ Amendmentȱ extendsȱ toȱ allȱ bearableȱ8ȱarms,ȱ andȱ thatȱ theȱ State,ȱ byȱ failingȱ toȱ presentȱ anyȱ9ȱargumentȱatȱallȱregardingȱthisȱweaponȱorȱothersȱlikeȱit,ȱ10ȱhasȱ failedȱ toȱ rebutȱ thatȱ presumption.ȱ Weȱ doȱ notȱ11ȱforecloseȱ theȱpossibilityȱ thatȱStatesȱ couldȱ inȱ theȱ futureȱ12ȱpresentȱevidenceȱtoȱsupportȱsuchȱaȱprohibition.ȱ13ȱ

(3) Newȱ York’sȱ sevenȬroundȱ loadȱ limitȱ doesȱ notȱ surviveȱ14ȱintermediateȱscrutinyȱinȱtheȱabsenceȱofȱrequisiteȱrecordȱ15ȱevidenceȱ andȱ aȱ substantialȱ relationshipȱ betweenȱ theȱ16ȱstatutoryȱprovisionȱandȱimportantȱstateȱsafetyȱinterests.ȱ17ȱWeȱ thereforeȱ AFFIRMȱ theȱ judgmentȱ ofȱ theȱWesternȱ18ȱDistrictȱ ofȱNewȱYorkȱ insofarȱ asȱ itȱ heldȱ thisȱ provisionȱ19ȱunconstitutional.ȱ20ȱ

(4) Noȱ challengedȱ provisionȱ inȱ eitherȱ statuteȱ isȱ21ȱunconstitutionallyȱvague.ȱAccordingly,ȱweȱAFFIRMȱtheȱ22ȱjudgmentsȱ ofȱ theȱ Districtȱ ofȱ Connecticutȱ andȱ theȱ23ȱWesternȱDistrictȱ ofȱNewȱ Yorkȱ insofarȱ asȱ theyȱ deniedȱ24ȱvaguenessȱ challengesȱ toȱ provisionsȱ involvingȱ theȱ25ȱcapacityȱ ofȱ tubularȱmagazines,ȱ “copiesȱ orȱduplicates,”ȱ26ȱ

ȱ

57ȱ

orȱ aȱ firearm’sȱ abilityȱ toȱ “beȱ readilyȱ restoredȱ orȱ1ȱconverted.”ȱWeȱREVERSEȱtheȱjudgmentȱofȱtheȱWesternȱ2ȱDistrictȱ ofȱ Newȱ Yorkȱ insofarȱ asȱ itȱ foundȱ languageȱ3ȱpertainingȱ toȱ “versions”ȱ andȱ “muzzleȱ breaks”ȱ toȱ beȱ4ȱunconstitutionallyȱvague.ȱ5ȱ