In layman’s terms: Judge rules a case challenging NY State’s ban on body armor can go forward.
The United States District Court for the Western District of New York has allowed a lawsuit challenging New York’s body armor ban to proceed. Judge John Sinatra, known to be favorable in rulings on Second Amendment issues, issued the decision on November 8.
The Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC)-sponsored case, known as Heer v. James, includes several plaintiffs, and challenges New York’s ban on body armor, naming New York Attorney General Letitia James and other state officials as defendants.
The state filed a motion to dismiss the case for lack of standing, and Judge Sinatra’s decision denies that motion. Standing is a legal requirement that ensures a plaintiff has a sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action they challenge, necessary for a court to have jurisdiction.
Judge Sinatra writes, “There is no dispute that the individual plaintiffs do have standing,” adding, “Here, Plaintiffs have demonstrated injury-in-fact. They allege ‘an intention to engage in a course of conduct’ arguably protected by the Second Amendment but proscribed by New York law.”
The lawsuit pivots on the definition of “arms” under the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court’s precedent in Heller (2008) shows that arms include items used for defense, which would logically include body armor.
“When a law, like New York’s body armor ban, prevents citizens from acquiring arms that are in common use for lawful purposes, then that law violates the Second Amendment,” the lawsuit states.
Cases defending body armor are breaking new ground in the Second Amendment rights arena and courts are likely to struggle with this topic.
