The NYC Case in the 2nd Circuit You’re Not Hearing About

There’s a curious set of cases involving New York City resident Cavalier D. Knight. Knight has been battling the City over prohibitions on FFLs getting state firearm licenses unless they have a brick-and-mortar location – as well as some permitting issues. In 2023 Tom covered his battle, and I did too, over at The Truth About Guns. The unfortunate thing about Knight’s battle is that it came to an end in early 2024 when a district court ruled against him. That did not deter him and he sought an audience with the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. On December 30th, 2024, Knight filed his final brief.

What’s the conflict at hand?

Knight is an FFL in the City of New York. He wishes to be able to conduct business from his home. New York City requires that an applicant for a state firearm dealer’s license have a brick-and-mortar location. Knight asserted that he wants to deal mostly in commerce via the internet as well as store inventory at an offsite location. He’s being restricted from even applying for the proper license.

In his latest filing, some facts were laid out:

The state allows Knight to take possession of semi-automatic rifles and magazines without a state FDL. Knight can conduct NICS checks and facilitate out-of-state transfers for “customers on whose behalf he could invoke third-party standing.” Knight’s possession of an FFL 01 makes him a firearms dealer. Although Knight can deal in rifles, selling handguns and ammunition requires a state FDL.

Prohibiting Knight from applying for a state FDL prohibits him from conducting NICS checks at gun shows and facilitating out-of-state transfers for handguns. Which strikes at the core of the 2nd Amendment right to acquire possess and publicly carry arms for self-defense in violation of Bruen.

We’ve been following both of Knight’s challenges since around day one. This challenge to the prohibition on those lacking a brick and mortar from getting a state firearms license, as well as a challenge he has to New York City’s carry permit versus premises permit restrictions. What can be said about Knight’s character is that he’s determined and no one is going to stop him from forging on.

In the past, he’s found minimal wins procedurally, as well as found judges harshly question the City’s stance. Granted, none of that was enough to get him over the hill, but he’s rattled cages while making New York City look pretty foolish throughout the process.

Very important framework was laid out in Knight’s final brief which noted the following:

In the decade of litigation following Heller, Courts of Appeals around the country adopted a variety of balancing tests that weighed a government’s interest in a particular gun control measure against the extent and nature of that law’s infringement of 2nd Amendment rights. Id. at 2126–27 (describing the tests in several circuits).

…

But Bruen rejected any “two-step,” “means-end scrutiny” entirely. 142 S. Ct. at 2125–26. In keeping with Heller, we hold that when the 2nd Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. This prohibits requiring a purchase authorization request every (90) days to limit citizens from purchasing more than (4) handguns per year.

Knight also approached the conflict textually and historically. In summary, he stated the obvious:

The City is prohibiting Cavalier Knight, LLC from selling handguns in intrastate and/or interstate commerce to Cavalier Knight the citizen in violation of the Commerce Clause. Prohibiting Cavalier Knight, LLC from selling handguns to Cavalier Knight the citizen. Violates the 3rd party 2nd Amendment rights of Cavalier Knight the citizen to acquire handguns to carry in public for self-defense from Cavalier Knight, LLC.

This a commerce clause case of first impression. The City’s refusal to provide a state FDL application that is equally applicable to all FFL 01s who intend to utilize e-commerce. As well as the OPINION of the lower court. As a matter of law conflicts with an act of Congress and should be struck down under the Supremacy Clause.

Knight v. The City of New York and Tisch, is case #  24-977, filed in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Hopefully, we’ll hear back some good news from Knight as he continues to battle the Big Apple, a city that just won’t give up when it comes to infringing on rights. We certainly wish him the best of luck and will be following up with him throughout 2025.