A federal magistrate judge found Nassau County liable for violating the Second Amendment when its Pistol License Section suspended David and Christine Ganz's licenses based on their adult daughter's mental health treatment and the couple's failure to report it. The August 24 opinion and order granted each side part of its summary judgment motion. It decided constitutional liability against the county, but did not end the case: damages remain set for trial in March 2027.
How the suspensions began
The Ganzes had held New York pistol licenses issued by Nassau County since 2020. Their daughter received mental health treatment at a Massachusetts hospital in February 2024. In September, another patient contacted the daughter's college and claimed she had drawn threatening images. The daughter denied that the image depicted a shooting or threat, and college police handled the school-threat investigation. Nassau County officers separately reviewed the Ganz household because the parents were license holders.
The record before the court contained two facts that drove the constitutional analysis. A police supervisor verified that the Ganzes' firearms were secured in a safe and unavailable to their daughter. An officer in the department's Homeland Security Unit also saw no problem with the parents keeping the secured firearms because there was no direct message threatening a shooting. Even so, a Pistol License Section investigator suspended both licenses, citing a volatile mental situation involving a household member and the parents' failure to report the hospitalization.
Invalid Date
More Articles
The investigator later said he was satisfied with photographs showing the firearms were properly stored. He did not interview either the daughter or the person who made the accusation. The section nevertheless required a letter from the daughter's treating psychologist stating her diagnosis, acknowledging that firearms were in the house, and expressing no objection to that arrangement. The investigator also testified that he did not consider either parent dangerous or a threat to public safety.
Thirteen months without licensed handguns
The Ganzes surrendered their firearms to a federal firearms licensee on October 16 and 19, 2024. While the suspensions remained in effect, they could not possess their handguns or buy new ones. The department had no fixed reinstatement timetable; the opinion says the duration depended on when the investigator and supervisor felt comfortable. In April 2025, the investigator recommended that the couple sign an acknowledgment of wrongdoing. They refused. Nassau County finally reinstated Christine Ganz's license on November 20, 2025, and David Ganz's the next day, after verbal admonishments for not reporting police contact within three business days.
The court treated the suit as an as-applied challenge, not a ruling that invalidated the county handbook in every possible application. Under the Supreme Court's Bruen framework, the parties agreed that possessing handguns for self-defense falls within the Second Amendment's text. Nassau County therefore had to identify a historical tradition supporting its action. The court found that the county offered no historical analogue for automatically suspending these licensees based on a cohabitant's situation after officials had determined that the guns were secure and the licensees themselves were not dangerous.
That distinction limits the ruling's reach. The opinion did not say licensing officials may never consider facts about a cohabitant. It said those facts may inform whether the licensee can be trusted with a weapon, but a cohabitant's status cannot by itself disqualify the licensee. The judge also found a county custom sufficient for municipal liability, relying in part on investigator testimony that a household member's unreported mental health treatment had served as grounds for suspension before. The court connected that custom to the Ganzes' 13-month loss of licensed handgun possession.
What the order leaves unresolved
The couple did not receive every remedy they sought. The court granted qualified immunity to the individual defendants, reasoning that the boundaries of official discretion in firearm licensing were not clearly established when they acted. It dismissed the official-capacity claim against the police commissioner as duplicative of the claim against Nassau County. The judge also denied a permanent injunction because the licenses had already been restored and damages offered an adequate remedy for this as-applied violation. That means the order does not broadly bar future enforcement of every household-member reporting rule.
The next stage concerns compensation rather than constitutional liability. The parties must file a joint pretrial order by November 23, 2026, appear for a final pretrial conference on November 30, and prepare for a damages trial scheduled for March 1, 2027. An appeal could change the posture, but the August 24 order itself does not identify whether either side will appeal. For Nassau County license holders, the immediate practical point is narrow: the ruling protects these plaintiffs from having their own secured-firearm status judged solely through a household member's circumstances, while leaving the amount of damages and any appellate review unsettled.
About the Author
Nick Sawinyh - Nick Sawinyh is a father, husband, hobby farmer, and gun enthusiast from Kentucky. He founded GunsNation and writes most of what appears on this blog.
