Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced today that it has filed a new Second Amendment lawsuit challenging New York’s ban on so-called “assault weapons.” The complaint in Vanchoff v. James, along with other case information, can be viewed at FPCLegal.org.

“Enough is enough,” said FPC policy counsel Matthew Larosiere “the people of New York have suffered this abuse for far too long. The arms targeted by New York’s ban are ordinary arms, kept by ordinary people for ordinary–but extremely important–purposes, including the fundamental right to an effective self-defense. There is no justification for threatening peaceable people with long stints in a government cage for merely possessing a firearm, regardless of what that particular firearm looks like. With this suit, we hope to end this injustice that has for too long imperiled New Yorkers.”

“There is no constitutionally relevant difference between a semi-automatic handgun, shotgun, and rifle,” the brief explains. “While some exterior physical attributes may differ—wood vs. metal stocks and furniture, the number and/or location of grips, having a bare muzzle vs. having muzzle devices, different barrel lengths, etc.—they are, in all relevant respects, the same.”

Individuals who would like to Join the FPC Grassroots Army and support important pro-rights lawsuits and programs can sign up at JoinFPC.org. Individuals and organizations wanting to support charitable efforts in support of the restoration of Second Amendment and other natural rights can also make a tax-deductible donation to the FPC Action Foundation. For more on FPC’s lawsuits and other pro-Second Amendment initiatives, visit FPCLegal.org and follow FPC on Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube.

From the court:

Docket Text:
TEXT ORDER granting in part and denying in part [10] Defendant's letter-motion for an extension of the deadline by which he must respond to Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. Although Defendant certainly must (as he argues) review "extensive" history to brief the Court on the relevant historical traditions in his response, he has already gotten a head start in amassing the necessary historical sources in N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Assoc., Inc. v. Bruen, 18-CV-0134 (N.D.N.Y.). Moreover, although Plaintiffs did not also file a motion for emergency relief in the form of a Temporary Restraining Order, the law they challenge does take effect on September 1, 2022: the Court could not grant Defendant the full extension he seeks without shortening (1) the seven-day period for Plaintiffs' reply, (2) the time afforded the Court to review that reply before the hearing, (3) the window of time in which to hold the hearing, and (4) the time afforded the Court (between the hearing and September 1, 2022) to prepare a Decision and Order. In short, the complete relief that Defendant seeks in his letter-motion would deprive Plaintiffs of their right to have their motion for a preliminary injunction fairly and justly decided, if not the very relief they are seeking. As a result, the deadline for Defendant's response to Plaintiffs' motion is extended five days to the end of MONDAY, AUGUST 15, 2022; and the deadline for Plaintiffs' reply is extended five days to the end of MONDAY, AUGUST 22, 2022. Defendant is respectfully advised that the partial granting of his letter-motion is contingent on him making himself available for an in-person hearing at any point between TUESDAY, AUGUST 23, 2022, and the end of FRIDAY, AUGUST 26, 2022. A Decision and Order on Plaintiffs' motion will be issued before the statute in question takes effect on September 1, 2022. SO ORDERED