Cavalier Knight challenged a New York City law because they wouldn’t issue him a firearm dealer’s license. Knight lacks a physical location. The Second Circuit says the challenge has merit.
Over the last few years Cavalier Knight has been challenging several of New York City’s regulations pro se. One of Knight’s challenges goes after the city’s failure to issue him a firearms dealer’s license. The reason? He lacks a brick-and-mortar location, which the City says precludes him from being able to conduct business as a dealer. Knight’s challenge has made it to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals and they’ve remanded portions of his challenge stating that the district court shall consider his “challenges to the place-of-business requirement …”
The 14-page order in Knight v. The City of New York came from Second Circuit Court Judges Chin, Sullivan, and Kahn. The judges ordered a “remand for the district court to consider … the merits of [Knight’s] challenges to” the requirement that he have a business location for engaging in commerce.
Knight’s original challenges of N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 10-302.1(b) (prohibiting the purchase of more than one firearm every 90 days) and § 10-302(c)(1) (the place-of business requirement) were dismissed by a magistrate judge. Following that dismissal, Knight appealed to a district court which adopted the lower court’s dismissal.
The circuit court affirming the dismissal of the one-in-90 days purchase regulation was because Knight could not show direct injury to himself. Knight’s claims pertained to his prospective customers being injured and the court asserted he lacks standing on that issue.
“Knight does not allege that he personally wishes to buy more than one gun every ninety days,” the order states. “Instead, he appears to claim that the ninety-day rule injures him economically by decreasing the rate at which potential customers could lawfully purchase firearms from him.”
On the topic of requiring a brick-and-mortar location, the judges stated that “with a dealer license in hand, Knight could not be criminally prosecuted for unlicensed commercial gun dealing.” They further note that “his risk of prosecution ‘would be reduced to some extent,’ even if not eliminated entirely, if he had a dealer license.” The end of the judges’ order “vacate[s] the district court’s dismissal of [Knight’s] challenges to the place-of-business requirement, and remand[s] [the] case for further proceedings.”
When the news broke on Jan. 13, Knight reached out to Bearing Arms. He spoke optimistically about the remand.
“What jumped out at me is the court didn’t dodge the merits by playing games with ‘standing,’” Knight said. “If New Yorkers face a credible threat of prosecution for trying to comply, that’s a real injury — full stop.
“And after Bruen, the city can’t hide behind paperwork, discretion, or dealer licensing schemes that choke off a constitutional right in practice. NYC’s gun rules shouldn’t be allowed to function like a slow-motion ban where the process becomes the punishment — because the right to keep and bear arms doesn’t mean much if the lawful market is strangled and the Second Amendment question never gets heard.”
Knight’s plight is one that may bring relief to many New Yorkers. The prohibition on having a firearms license without having a brick-and-mortar location does deny law-abiding people the ability to engage in meaningful and constitutionally protected commerce. Bearing Arms has been following Knight’s cases dating back to 2022. The pro se litigant hasn’t given up the fight and it’s likely he’ll be making his mark on history by dismantling an unconstitutional law.
Editor’s Note: The radical left will stop at nothing to enact their radical gun control agenda and strip us of our Second Amendment rights.
Help us continue to report on and expose the Democrats’ gun control policies and schemes. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your VIP membership.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member