Suffolk County NY Surrenders to Lawsuit Challenging its Gun License Restrictions

Last updated on August 7th, 2024 at 04:27 pm

Suffolk County Attorney Christopher Clayton, on July 31, signaled the county’s surrender on a lawsuit challenging its gun licensing policies.

Plaintiffs Thomas and Diane LaMarco first filed the lawsuit in August of 2022, challenging a specific rule by the county to suspend the New York State Pistol Licenses of individuals who reside with a person who has been prohibited from possessing firearms or who did not notify the licensing department of police arriving to their home for a mental health call.

Thomas and Diane LaMarco each possessed state pistol licenses for a combined 25 years. County authorities suspended these licenses in April of 2021 over a 2017 police mental health visit concerning their adult son. The LaMarcos, in turn, surrendered their firearms to the county, fearing the county would prosecute them for unlawful possession.

The LaMarco’s challenged the license suspensions on grounds the move violated their 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms under the U.S. Constitution, their 4th Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, and their 14th Amendment right to due process before the county deprived them of their rights and property. The plaintiffs also pointed, in their complaint, to language in the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen in which the court stated if an individual’s conduct falls under the plain text of the 2nd Amendment, then the government must demonstrate that a law or regulation is consistent with the nation’s “historical tradition of firearm regulation.”

Challenging the lawsuit, the defendants argued its licensing policies didn’t implicate the 2nd Amendment. They also argued that Bruen’s historical tradition test does not apply retroactively to existing laws.

Judge Gary Brown, of the U.S. Federal Court District for the Eastern District of New York rejected the defendants’ arguments in a July 2 order. Brown said the county failed to properly consider Bruen by “dodging the issue.” Brown said the county’s arguments that the case doesn’t concern the 2nd Amendment or Bruen were “spurious” and seemingly done as a delay tactic.

“Moreover, the County’s assertion that Bruen is not retroactive is equally preposterous,” Brown added.

The judge ordered the county to file a new brief explaining its view on how to properly apply Bruen within 10 days. He also announced the plaintiffs would have a chance to respond to the county, adding that “given the absence of a good faith basis for the County’s position” he would direct the county to pay the LaMarco’s attorneys fees for this response brief.

The county had filed for an extension of the July 2 order, asking that they be given an extra 10 days to file their supplemental brief. Brown granted their request. But rather than filing a supplemental brief, the county attorney announced the county no longer wished to fight the plaintiffs.

“The County now believes that it would not be wise to continue litigating the question of whether the alleged policies challenged in this case comport with the Second Amendment,” Clayton wrote. “Instead, the County wishes to resolve this case by making policy changes sought by plaintiffs and affording them pecuniary relief.”

Clayton said Suffolk County would propose changes to its licensing rules. He said the county would also restore the LaMarcos’ pistol licenses and return their surrendered firearms.

The county’s latest filing marks a win for the LaMarcos. It also signifies the collapse of at least a portion of the county’s restrictions on firearms licenses.

Bellantoni Law Firm, a New York-based firm that specializes in 2nd Amendment litigation, represented the LaMarcos in their case.