Kachalsky v. Cacace

Last updated

Kachalsky v. Cacace (District - 10 Civ 05413, 2nd Circuit - 11-3642) is a case regarding the constitutionality of "may-issue" concealed carry laws. The plaintiffs, Alan Kachalsky, Christina Nikolov, and the Second Amendment Foundation, represented by Alan Gura, originally sought an injunction barring Susan Cacace, handgun licensing authority for co-Defendant Westchester County, New York, from enforcing a requirement of New York State law that applicants for handgun carry permits demonstrate "proper cause" for the issuance of a handgun license and subsequent carry of a handgun in public. [1]

Contents

The case is a direct challenge to the State of New York's "may-issue" system of concealed carry firearm licensing as being an unconstitutional infringement of the right to keep and bear arms as recognized by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. It is similar in basic subject matter to several other cases, such as Woollard v. Sheridan and Moore v. Madigan , filed in the wake of the landmark Supreme Court decision in McDonald v. City of Chicago which applied the Second Amendment as a check on State power as well as Federal, under the selective incorporation doctrine.

Background

Chapter 265 of the Penal Code of the State of New York deals primarily with crimes involving illegal possession of firearms. §265.01(1) generally prohibits the possession of firearms by individuals, making it a gross misdemeanor, while §265.03(3) makes possession of a firearm outside of one's home or place of business a felony. However, these do not apply, as in 265.20, to an individual who possesses a license issued by the State of New York under Chapter 400 of the Penal Code. The only license available to most residents of the State is provided under §400.00(2), which is a license "to have and carry concealed, without regard to employment or place of possession, [a pistol or revolver] by any person when proper cause exists for the issuance thereof." Self-Defense is described as a "central component" of the 2nd Amendment, see, McDonald vs. City of Chicago (2010), and New York is ignoring this as "proper cause" to deny this right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. This "proper cause" clause is understood to allow the issuing authority discretion to deny permits based on lack of demonstration by the applicant of such cause. [1]

Alan Kachalsky applied for such a carry license in 2008, and was denied by Cacace on the recommendation of the County Judge in October, based solely on the fact that he "has not stated any facts which would demonstrate a need for self protection distinguishable from that of the general public." (The county judge who made this recommendation is not named specifically in the suit; this is common as lawsuits claiming damages resulting from judicial orders have a very high burden of proof to prevent retaliatory litigation). He appealed to the Appellate Division of the New York State Supreme Court, which in September 2009 held that the Defendants' decision was not "arbitrary or capricious" and would stand. The New York State Court of Appeals dismissed a further appeal in February 2010 on the grounds that it presented no constitutional question. At the time, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals had held that the decisions made in District of Columbia v. Heller did not apply to the States as the Second Amendment had not been incorporated to the States. However, in June 2010, the Supreme Court's decision in McDonald overturned this decision and held that the Second Amendment did constitute a limitation on States' powers. [1]

Plaintiff Christina Nikolov similarly applied for a handgun carry license in the same County in 2009, and was denied for similar reasons, including a similar finding that Nikolov "has not demonstrated that she has a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general public". [1]

District Court

The federal complaint, dated July 14, 2010, was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, White Plains Division, Judge Cathy Siebel presiding. It asserts that New York's "proper cause" requirement constitutes an unreasonable infringement upon the Second Amendment rights of the Plaintiffs and of all residents of the State of New York, subject to liability under 42 USC §1983. It requests an order enjoining the Defendants and their officers and agents from enforcing the good cause requirement of NYPC §400.00(2)(f), an order commanding Defendants to issue the Plaintiffs their applied-for permits, and other relief. [1]

The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which was denied, and a hearing for the Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgement was subsequently granted. Both sides filed numerous briefs in support or opposition to this motion, and on September 2, 2011, District Judge Cathy Siebel denied the Plaintiffs' motion, simultaneously granting the Defendants' cross-motion for summary judgement in their favor. Judge Siebel found that, in applying intermediate scrutiny, the "proper cause" requirement promotes and is substantially related to the government's strong interest in public safety and crime prevention, and thus, while it is conceded to be an infringement of the Plaintiffs' Constitutional rights, it is constitutional and may stand.

Court of Appeals, Second Circuit

The Plaintiffs' filed notice of an appeal to the United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, on September 7, 2011. Oral arguments were heard on August 22, 2012, and on November 27 of the same year, the panel ruling affirmed the District Court decision along similar reasoning. The Court noted that restrictions on firearms in New York law predate the ratification of the Constitution, and the law in nearly its current form has survived constitutional scrutiny before (albeit under the now-erroneous assertion that the Second Amendment of the Constitution is solely a check on Federal powers and does not apply to the States). The court assumed, without deciding, that the Second Amendment does entail a right to bear arms in public, but it held that the "proper cause" requirement passes muster under intermediate scrutiny. [2]

Supreme Court

The Appellants' (Kachalsky et alii) petition for certiorari was filed on January 8, 2013. [3] The questions presented were:

  1. Does the Second Amendment secure a right to carry handguns for self-defense outside the home?
  2. Do state officials violate the Second Amendment by denying handgun carry licenses to responsible, law-abiding adults for lack of "proper cause" to bear arms for self-defense?

Certiorari was denied April 15, 2013, [4] however it is expected [5] that the SCOTUS will hear a case like it, as the Circuit Courts are divided in their opinions on the issue of public handgun carry permit policies. Woollard v. Sheridan , initially decided in favor of a plaintiff seeking to renew a Maryland CCW permit, was overturned on appeal by the Fourth Circuit along similar reasoning as the Second Circuit's here, while Moore v. Madigan , a case challenging Illinois' no-issue permitting policy, was decided in favor of the Plaintiffs and subsequently upheld by the Seventh Circuit. [6]

Related Research Articles

The Sullivan Act is a gun control law in New York state that took effect in 1911. The NY state law required licenses for New Yorkers to possess firearms small enough to be concealed. Private possession of such firearms without a license was a misdemeanor, and carrying them in public was a felony. The act was named for its primary legislative sponsor, state senator Timothy Sullivan, a notoriously corrupt Tammany Hall Democratic politician.

Concealed carry, or carrying a concealed weapon (CCW), is the practice of carrying a weapon in public in a concealed manner, either on one's person or in close proximity. CCW is often practiced as a means of self-defense. It is illegal in many states to carry a concealed handgun without first obtaining a permit from a designated government authority at the state and/or local level. Permits may be difficult to obtain in some areas.

Second Amendment Foundation United States nonprofit organization that supports gun rights

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) is a United States nonprofit organization that supports gun rights. Founded in 1974 by Alan Gottlieb and headquartered in Bellevue, Washington, SAF publishes gun rights magazines and public education materials, funds conferences, provides media contacts, and has assumed a central role in sponsoring lawsuits.

DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332 (2006), is a United States Supreme Court case involving the standing of taxpayers to challenge state tax laws in federal court. The Court unanimously ruled that state taxpayers did not have standing under Article III of the United States Constitution to challenge state tax or spending decisions simply by virtue of their status as taxpayers. Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the majority opinion, which was joined by all of the justices except for Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who concurred separately.

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court ruling that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, unconnected with service in a militia, for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, and that the District of Columbia's handgun ban and requirement that lawfully owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated this guarantee. It also stated that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and that guns and gun ownership would continue to be regulated. It was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense or if the right was intended for state militias.

Gun laws in California Californias gun law

Gun laws in California regulate the sale, possession, and use of firearms and ammunition in the state of California in the United States.

McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that found that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms," as protected under the Second Amendment, is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and is thereby enforceable against the states. The decision cleared up the uncertainty left in the wake of District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) as to the scope of gun rights in regard to the states.

Gun laws in New York New Yorks gun law

Gun laws in New York regulate the sale, possession, and use of firearms and ammunition in the U.S. state of New York, outside of New York City which has separate licensing regulations. These regulations are relatively strict in comparison to the rest of the United States.

American Electric Power Company v. Connecticut, 564 U.S. 410 (2011), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court, in an 8–0 decision, held that corporations cannot be sued for greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) under federal common law, primarily because the Clean Air Act (CAA) delegates the management of carbon dioxide and other GHG emissions to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Brought to court in July 2004 in the Southern District of New York, this was the first global warming case based on a public nuisance claim.

Gun laws in Arkansas Arkansass gun law

Gun laws in Arkansas regulate the sale, possession, and use of firearms and ammunition in the state of Arkansas in the United States.

Gun laws in Maryland Marylands gun law

Gun laws in Maryland regulate the sale, possession, and use of firearms and ammunition in the U.S. state of Maryland.

Woollard v. Sheridan, 863 F. Supp. 2d 462, reversed sub. nom., Woollard v Gallagher, 712 F.3d 865, was a civil lawsuit brought on behalf of Raymond Woollard, a resident of the State of Maryland, by the Second Amendment Foundation against Terrence Sheridan, Secretary of the Maryland State Police, and members of the Maryland Handgun Permit Review Board. Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants' refusal to grant a concealed carry permit renewal to Mr. Woollard on the basis that he "...ha[d] not demonstrated a good and substantial reason to wear, carry or transport a handgun as a reasonable precaution against apprehended danger in the State of Maryland" was a violation of Mr. Woollard's rights under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments, and therefore unconstitutional. The trial court found in favor of Mr. Woollard, However, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the trial court and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review that decision.

Lane v Holder is a civil lawsuit filed with the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on behalf of plaintiff Michelle Lane, a resident of the District of Columbia, by the Second Amendment Foundation against Eric Holder, Attorney General for the United States, and W. Steven Flaherty, Superintendent of the Virginia State Police. The suit seeks to bar the Defendants from enforcing a provision of the Federal Gun Control Act of 1968 that prohibits the purchase of firearms by a non-resident of the state in which the purchase is made, and from enforcing a Virginia State statute prohibiting the sale of handguns, outright, to any non-resident of the State. The case was dismissed by the District Court judge Gerald Bruce Lee. An appeal by Lane and the SAF is pending before the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

<i>Moore v. Madigan</i>

Moore v Madigan is the common name for a pair of cases decided in 2013 by the U.S. Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit, regarding the constitutionality of the State of Illinois' no-issue legislation and policy regarding the carry of concealed weapons. The plaintiffs, Michael Moore, Mary Shepard and the Second Amendment Foundation, sought an injunction against Illinois attorney general Lisa Madigan, Illinois Governor Patrick Quinn, and other named defendants, barring them from enforcing two key provisions of the Illinois Statutes prohibiting public possession of a firearm or other weapon.

People v. Aguilar, 2 N.E.3d 321, was an Illinois Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Aggravated Unlawful Use of a Weapon (AUUF) statute violated the right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment. The Court stated that this was because the statute amounted to a wholesale statutory ban on the exercise of a personal right that was specifically named in and guaranteed by the United States Constitution, as construed by the United States Supreme Court. A conviction for Unlawful Possession of a Firearm (UPF) was proper because the possession of handguns by minors was conduct that fell outside the scope of the Second Amendment's protection.

Peruta v. San Diego, 824 F.3d 919, was a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit pertaining to the legality of San Diego County's restrictive policy regarding requiring documentation of "good cause" that "distinguish[es] the applicant from the mainstream and places the applicant in harm's way" before issuing a concealed carry permit.

Gun laws in the Northern Mariana Islands

Gun laws in the Northern Mariana Islands regulate the sale, possession, and use of firearms and ammunition in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. As the Northern Mariana Islands is a commonwealth of the United States, many federal laws apply, as well as Constitutional rulings and protections.

In Brenner v. Scott and its companion case, Grimsley v. Scott, a U.S. district court found Florida's constitutional and statutory same-sex marriage bans unconstitutional. On August 21, 2014, the court issued a preliminary injunction that prevents that state from enforcing its bans and then stayed its injunction until stays are lifted in the three same-sex marriage cases then petitioning for a writ of certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court–Bostic, Bishop, and Kitchen–and for 91 days thereafter. When the district court's preliminary injunction took effect on January 6, 2015, enforcement of Florida's bans on same-sex marriage ended.

New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. City of New York, New York, 590 U.S. ___ (2020), abbreviated NYSRPA v. NYC, also known as NYSRPA I, was a case addressing whether the gun ownership laws of New York City, which restrict the transport of a licensed firearm out of one's home, violated the Constitution's Second Amendment, Commerce Clause, and the right to travel. It was the first major gun-related case that the Supreme Court had accepted for review in nearly ten years, after District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010). After the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, New York City and New York state amended its laws to allay the challenged provision. In a per curiam decision in April 2020, the Supreme Court determined that the case was moot, vacating and remanding the case to lower courts to determine "whether petitioners may still add a claim for damages in this lawsuit with respect to New York City's old rule."

New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen, Docket 20-843, abbreviated NYSRPA v. Bruen, also known as NYSRPA II, is a pending United States Supreme Court case related to the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 Complaint - Kachalsky v. Cacace, District Court
  2. ↑ "Kachalsky v. Cnty. Of Westchester, 701 F.3d 81 (2d Cir. 2012), Court Opinion".
  3. ↑ Kachalsky v. Cacace - Petition For Certiorari Before SCOTUS
  4. ↑ ORDER LIST: 569 U.S.
  5. ↑ Kachalsky v Cacace, Legal Brief - Cato Institute
  6. ↑ Opinion - Moore v. Madigan, Seventh Circuit
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.