III. Conclusion
To summarize, we conclude as follows:
1. Plaintiffs Native Leather, Copeland, and Perez have standing to
challenge defendants’ application of N.Y. Penal Law §§ 265.00(5) and 265.01(1) because each has expressed a present intent to possess such knives (but for
defendants’ challenged enforcement actions) and each has demonstrated a
credible threat of prosecution based on defendants’ (a) recent enforcement
actions against them, (b) express threat to prosecute Native Leather further
under the terms of a deferred prosecution agreement, and (c) continued defense of the wrist‐flick test that allegedly prompted plaintiffs’ past violation charges.
2. Our precedent precludes Knife Rights and Knife Rights Foundation
from asserting standing on behalf of their members under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Nor can these organizational plaintiffs demonstrate standing to sue on their own behalf based on claimed injury to their activities from expenditures diverted to oppose defendants’ actions. Such past injuries cannot be redressed by the declaratory and injunctive relief sought in this action, and plaintiffs fail to demonstrate that any future expenditures and attending injuries are certainly impending.
3. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiffs’
motion for leave to amend their complaint a second time to address defects in
standing. Accordingly, the district court’s judgment of dismissal is AFFIRMED as to Knife Rights and Knife Rights Foundation, and VACATED as to Native Leather, Copeland, and Perez. The case is REMANDED as to these three plaintiffs for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
