1 21

- 1986

- cv Sibley v. Watches UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “ SUMMARY ORDER ” ). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held 1 at the Thu rgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New 2 York, on the 20 th day of July , two thousand twenty

- two. 3
4 PRESENT: ROSEMARY S. POOLER, 5 GERARD E. LYNCH
, 6 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.
, 7 Circuit Judges

. 8

------------------------------------------------------------------ 9 MONTGOMERY BLAIR SIBLEY
, 10
11 Plaintiff

- Appellant
, 12
13

v. No. 2 1

- 1986

- cv 14
15 CHAUNCEY J. WATCHES
, 

### SOLELY 16 

### IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS A 17 

### NEW YORK CONSOLIDATED 18 

### LAWS, PENAL LAW 265 .00 (10) 19 

### LICENSING OFFICER, 20
212 Defendant

- Appellee



### . ∗ 1



### ------------------------------------------------------------------ 2 

### FOR PLAINTIFF

- APPELLANT: M ONTGOMERY 

### B LAIR 

### S IBLEY 

### , 3 

### pro se , Odessa , NY 4

5 

### FOR DEFENDANT

- APPELLEE: A LEXANDRIA 

### T WINEM 

### , 6 

### Assistant Solicitor General, 7 

### (Barbara D. Underwood, 8 

### Solicitor General, Andrea Oser, 9 

### Deputy Solicitor General, on 10 

### the brief ), for Letitia James, 11 

### Attorney General, State of 12 

### New York, Albany, NY 13


### Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the 14



### Western District of New York ( Frank P. Geraci, Jr.
, Judge ). 15



### UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, 16



### AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court is VACATED and the 17



### ca se is REMANDED. 18



### Montgomery Blair Sibley, a suspended attorney proceeding pro se , appeals 19



### from the July 2 1 , 2021 judgment of the United States District Court for the 20



### Western District of New York ( Geraci
, J. ) dismissing his complaint against 21



### County Court J udge Chauncey Watches, who denied Sibley’s application for a 22



### firearm license. Sibley also appeals from the District Court’s August 5, 2021 23

∗ The Clerk of Court is directed to amend the caption as set forth above.3 

### order denying his motion to alter or amend its prior decision. Sibley raises 1



### constitutional challenges to New York’ s law criminalizing the unlicensed 2



### possession of certain weapons, see N.Y. Penal Law § 265.01 , and to New York’s 3



### firearm licensing scheme
, see N .Y. Penal Law § 400.00(1)

. We assume the parties’ 4



### familiarity with the underlying facts and the record of prior proceedings , to 5



### which we refer only as necessary to explain our decision to vacate and remand

. 6



### While Sibley’s appeal was pending, the Supreme Court decided New York 7



### State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen
, No. 20

- 843, 2022 WL 2251305 ( July 8



### 23, 2022). Bruen concerned a provision of New York’s firearm licensing scheme 9



### that requir ed applicants for concealed carry licenses to show “proper cause.” Id. 10



### at * 5 (quoting N.Y. Penal Law § 400.00(2)(f ) )

. The Supreme Court held that the 11



### Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual ’ s right to carry a 12



### handgun for self

- defense outside the home and that the “proper cause” 13



### requirement violated the constitutional rights of the plaintiffs, who had applied 14



### for and been denied concealed carry licenses

. Id. at * 34

. We remand the case to 15



### the District Court to consider in t he first instance the impact, if any, of Bruen on 16



### Sibley’s claims, which concern a different provision imposing a “good moral 17



### character” requirement on applications for both carry and at

- home licenses

. N.Y. 184 

### Penal Law § 400.00(1)(b) . We express no view as to that issue or any other issue 1



### that may arise before the District Court as a result of thi s remand. 1 2



### For the foregoing reasons, we VACATE the judgment of the District Court 3



### and REMAND the case for proceedings consistent with this order. 4



### FOR THE COURT: 5 

### Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court 6

7

1 For example, one issue that may arise before the District Court on remand is whether recent amendments to New York’s gun

- licensing scheme that were enacted in response

to Bruen and will become effective on September 1, 2022 render this case moot. See 2022 N.Y. Sess. Laws Ch. 371 (S . 51001)

.