Kachalsky v. County of Westchester
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 24363
| 2d Cir. | 2012Background
- Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to bar New York's requirement that concealed-carry license applicants show 'proper cause' under N.Y. Penal Law § 400.00(2)(f).
- They argue the proper cause requirement violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments as applied to carrying a handgun in public for self-defense.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the State and sua sponte for Westchester County, holding the provision constitutional or, alternatively, that it would survive scrutiny.
- New York regulates handgun possession via § 400.00; § 400.00(2)(f) is the only license to carry a concealed handgun in public, subject to a required special need; other licenses target specific employment or purposes.
- Proper cause, defined by New York courts, requires a special need for self-protection distinguishable from the general public; target practice and hunting are exceptions with restricted licenses.
- Plaintiffs include Kachalsky, Nikolov, Nance, Marcucci-Nance, and Detmer; Nikolov argued transgender-vulnerability as the basis for proper cause.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does NY's proper cause requirement violate the Second Amendment in public carry? | Kachalsky contends the Amendment guarantees public carry without proper cause. | State Defendants argue regulation is permissible under the Second Amendment for public carry. | No categorical ban; law passes intermediate scrutiny |
| What level of scrutiny applies to NY's public-carry regulation? | Proper cause is unconstitutional under strict scrutiny. | Intermediate scrutiny applies given public-safety regulation context. | Intermediate scrutiny applies; regulation upheld if substantially related to important interests |
| Can the proper cause requirement be sustained on a facial overbreadth challenge? | Overbreadth challenges may invalidate the law broadly. | Overbreadth challenges are typically limited to First Amendment contexts and unify with standard analysis. | Plaintiffs' facial challenge rejected |
Key Cases Cited
- District of Columbia v. Heller, U.S. 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (recognizes an individual right to possess and carry firearms for self-defense and that the home carries special status)
- McDonald v. City of Chicago, U.S. 130 S. Ct. 3020 (2010) (applies Second Amendment to states via incorporation)
- United States v. Masciandaro, 638 F.3d 458 (4th Cir. 2011) (intermediate scrutiny applied to public-venue firearm regulation)
- United States v. Decastro, 682 F.3d 160 (2d Cir. 2012) (rejected as to level of scrutiny for certain burdens on the Second Amendment, informed intermediate scrutiny approach)
- United States v. Skoien, 614 F.3d 638 (7th Cir. 2010) (illustrates application of intermediate scrutiny in Second Amendment context)