Federal Judge Rules Challenge to NY Body Armor Ban Can Proceed

Last updated on November 18th, 2024 at 09:05 am

A federal judge has rejected a motion from the state of New York to dismiss a challenge to its law banning access to body armor for most civilians, meaning the challenge can now proceed.

Individual plaintiffs Benjamin Heeter, Mark Braiman, and Joseph Wurtenberg filed the legal challenge in 2022, with support from the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC).

The New York law passed the body armor law at issue in 2022. The law specifically states “a person is guilty of the unlawful purchase of body armor when, not being engaged or employed in an eligible profession, they knowingly purchase or take possession of body armor.” The law further states “unlawful purchase of body armor is a class A misdemeanor for a first offense and a class E felony for any subsequent offense.”

A Class A misdemeanor in New York is punishable by up to one year in jail. A Class E felony in New York is punishable by up to four years in jail.

The plaintiffs challenging the New York law argue it’s unconstitutional, as body armor should be covered under the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. They specifically argued the term “arms” as used in the Second Amendment context of the “right to keep and bear arms,” had “an expansive meaning at the time of the ratification of the Bill of Rights, and included tools that have a purely defensive purpose, such as body armor.”

The plaintiffs further argued, citing the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in the 2022 case of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, that those seeking to ban access to body armor must demonstrate an equivalent law existed at the time of the founding of the United States.

“New York cannot meet its burden; there exists no American tradition of depriving citizens of the ability to lawfully purchase, sell, or take possession of purely defensive arms and armor. Indeed, there were no restrictions concerning body armor at all prior to 1900,” the plaintiffs wrote in their July complaint.

The state of New York filed a motion to dismiss the case for lack of standing. The state argued plaintiffs couldn’t show they’d suffered and specific injury. The state also argued for the case’s dismissal on grounds it had improperly named Acting Erie County Michael J. Keane, as a defendant.

Judge John L. Sinatra Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York, ruled that the individual plaintiffs did have standing and that he didn’t need to weigh in on FPC’s standing as an organization supporting Heeter, Braiman, and Wurtenberg.

Sinatra, whom Donald Trump appointed in his first term in office, ruled the plaintiffs had sufficiently demonstrated a present injury-in-fact because they all intend to purchase body armor as New York residents but can’t for fear of running afoul of the existing law.

By the end of his 19-page order, Sinatra concluded the plaintiffs could proceed with their legal challenge.

Sinatra’s decision brings the parties one step closer to decision on the merits, as to whether the New York body armor law is constitutional.