## Facts

- New York enacted “gun show” legislation (GBL Article 39-DD, §§ 895–897) requiring, among other things, signage and completion of NICS background checks for firearms transfers at gun shows.
- The statute defined “gun show” using (i) a broad introductory clause based on sponsorship by firearms-related organizations and (ii) objective numerical triggers (e.g., number of exhibitors or firearms offered).
- Plaintiffs included firearms-rights and sportsmen organizations and a firearms retailer that alleged the law burdened their activities.
- Plaintiffs also challenged New York’s Combined Ballistic Identification System (CoBIS) (GBL § 396-ff and regulations), which required submission of ballistic samples for certain firearms sold in New York.
- Plaintiffs sued the Governor, Attorney General, and State Police Superintendent in individual and official capacities, asserting constitutional challenges to the gun-show provisions and CoBIS.
- Defendants moved to dismiss or for judgment on the pleadings under Rules 12(b)(6) and 12(c); plaintiffs cross-moved under Rule 12(c) seeking partial judgment and injunctive relief.
- The court resolved the motions on the pleadings and statutory text, granting limited relief and allowing several claims to proceed.

## Issues

1. Whether the broad introductory clause of GBL § 895(1)’s “gun show” definition is facially overbroad under the First and Fourteenth Amendments because it sweeps in protected speech and association.
2. Whether the remaining gun-show provisions are unconstitutional on vagueness or privacy theories.
3. Whether CoBIS violates constitutional privacy or the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, or fails rational-basis review, on the pleadings.

## Decision

- Granted plaintiffs judgment on the pleadings on the First Amendment overbreadth claim as to the broad introductory clause of GBL § 895(1).
- Enjoined enforcement of that broad definitional clause while leaving intact the statute’s more objective, numerical triggers for defining “gun show.”
- Denied plaintiffs’ remaining gun-show challenges (including vagueness and privacy) at the pleadings stage.
- Declined to invalidate CoBIS on the Rule 12(c) record and declined to grant dispositive relief for either side on the CoBIS-related privacy, self-incrimination, and rational-basis theories.
- Declined to resolve equal protection challenges on the pleadings due to an insufficient factual record, allowing those claims to proceed.

## Legal Principles

- A statute affecting expressive association may be facially invalid under the First Amendment overbreadth doctrine if its reach is real and substantial relative to its legitimate sweep and it chills protected activity.
- Statutory titles and headings cannot narrow unambiguous operative text; courts apply the enacted language rather than relying on a caption to supply limiting meaning.
- Facial vagueness relief is disfavored where objective statutory criteria provide meaningful guidance as to coverage.
- In a heavily regulated area such as firearms commerce, generalized privacy objections to mandated transaction-related disclosures are less likely to establish a constitutional violation on the pleadings.
- Regulations not implicating a suspect class or fundamental right are generally evaluated under rational-basis review, and courts may require factual development before adjudicating the regulation’s fit and burdens.
- Fifth Amendment compulsion and related constitutional challenges to regulatory schemes may turn on how the scheme operates in practice, making dismissal or invalidation on the pleadings inappropriate where material facts are undeveloped.

## Conclusion

The court held that New York’s expansive definitional clause for “gun show” was facially overbroad because it could treat virtually any event sponsored by firearms-related organizations as a regulated gun show, chilling protected speech and association; it enjoined enforcement of that clause but otherwise left the gun-show regime largely intact and allowed CoBIS and equal protection challenges to continue for further factual development.


SCOPE, Inc. v. Pataki, 386 F. Supp. 2d 184 (W.D.N.Y. 2005)