Opinion ID: 2969190
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Knife Rights and Knife Rights Foundation

Text: Knife Rights is a membership advocacy organization that “promotes legislative and legal action, as well as research, publishing, and advocacy, in 10 support of people’s ability to carry and use knives and tools.” Id. ¶ 10. Knife Rights also seeks to “vindicate the legal rights of individuals and businesses who are unable to act on their own behalf in light of the costs and time commitments involved in litigation.” Id. ¶ 47. Knife Rights asserts that defendants have charged or threatened to charge certain of its members with violations of § 265.01(1). As a result, some (unidentified) members have refrained from carrying or selling folding knives for fear of being so charged. Knife Rights Foundation is a nonprofit organization intended “to promote education and research regarding knives and edged tools.” Id. ¶ 13. Knife Rights Foundation alleges that it “has paid or contributed towards . . . some of the monetary expenses that Knife Rights has incurred . . . in consequence of Defendants’ threatened enforcement” of § 265.01(1), which “expenditures have come at the expense of other organizational priorities of Knife Rights Foundation.” Id. ¶ 52. C. Prior Proceedings On June 9, 2011, plaintiffs Copeland, Perez, and Knife Rights initiated this action, seeking (1) a declaration that N.Y. Penal Law §§ 265.00(5) and 265.01(1) 11 are unconstitutionally vague as applied to common folding knives, and (2) an injunction preventing defendants’ continued enforcement of these statutes as to such knives.3 Defendants moved for dismissal pursuant to, inter alia, Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and (c), whereupon plaintiffs successfully sought leave to amend. This resulted, among other things, in the addition of Native Leather and Knife Rights Foundation as named plaintiffs. Defendants thereafter renewed their motion for dismissal, arguing that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because no plaintiff alleged the injury in fact necessary to satisfy Article III’s case‐or‐controversy requirement. The district court agreed and entered judgment for defendants on September 25, 2013. As to plaintiffs Copeland and Perez, the district court determined that any injury was “completely hypothetical” and “highly speculative,” because neither 3 Plaintiffs also sought declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to the application of the switchblade prohibition of §§ 265.00(4) and 265.01(1) to common folding knives designed to resist opening from their folded and closed positions. On appeal, however, plaintiffs challenge dismissal only by reference to the § 265.00(5) gravity knife ban. See Appellants’ Br. 3 (“Switchblade knives are not at issue here.”). Accordingly, plaintiffs appear to have abandoned their challenge to the switchblade ban, and we do not consider it here. See Hughes v. Bricklayers & Allied Craftworkers Local No. 45, 386 F.3d 101, 104 n.1 (2d Cir. 2004). 12 had alleged “the make and model of knife that he wants to carry or specifically describe[d] it.” Knife Rights, Inc. v. Vance, 2013 WL 5434610, at  (internal quotation marks omitted). As to Native Leather, the district court stated that the store’s “desire to skirt the edges of the law does not create an injury sufficient for Article III standing.” Id. The district court further concluded that Knife Rights and Knife Rights Foundation’s expenditure of resources to avoid “an entirely hypothetical possibility that the government’s policies will injure their members” did not confer standing because the threat of harm to the organizations and their members was too speculative. Id. at . Plaintiffs sought reconsideration, arguing that the district court had failed to consider their request for leave to amend and providing the court with a proposed second amended complaint indicating that, but for the alleged vagueness in defendants’ application of § 265.01(1), plaintiff Copeland would purchase, possess, and use another “Benchmade model 10210 folding knife,” and that plaintiff Perez would purchase, possess, and use another “Gerber model 05785 folding knife.” Proposed Second Am. Compl. ¶¶ 54, 59. The district court denied reconsideration, noting, among other things, that amendment would 13 unduly prejudice defendants because discovery had been completed and summary judgment had already been awarded in their favor. This timely appeal followed.