Osterweil v. Bartlett
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 2010
2d Cir.2013Background
- Osterweil applied for a New York handgun license in May 2008, filing where he resided per NY Penal Law § 400.00(3)(a).
- During the application, Osterweil moved his permanent residence to Louisiana, keeping Summit, NY as a part-time vacation home.
- Bartlett denied the license, interpreting § 400.00(3)(a) as a domicile requirement, citing Osterweil's non-domiciled status.
- The district court ruled the statute imposes a domicile requirement and that it survived intermediate scrutiny under the Second Amendment, denying relief.
- Osterweil appealed, contending the statute imposes a domicile requirement unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.
- The Second Circuit certified that a predicate state-law question should be resolved by the New York Court of Appeals before deciding the federal constitutional issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does § 400.00(3)(a) require domicile or only residence? | Osterweil argues the statute uses residence, not domicile. | Bartlett argues the statute requires domicile based on interpretation of 'resides'. | Certification appropriate; court will defer to NY Court of Appeals on state-law meaning. |
| Is the NY Court of Appeals the proper forum to interpret residence vs. domicile here? | State-law question should be resolved by NY Court of Appeals via certification. | Certifying is appropriate to avoid federal ambiguity and preserve state-law control. | Certification warranted to obtain authoritative state-law interpretation. |
| Is certification preferable to Pullman abstention to avoid premature federal constitutional ruling? | Certification causes delay and federal rights concerns; abstention could avoid reach. | Certification is faster and more appropriate when unsettled state law precedes federal questions. | Certification chosen; Pullman abstention less suitable and slower. |
Key Cases Cited
- Arizona v. United States, 520 U.S. 43 (1997) (certification to state court to avoid federal judgment when state law can avoid constitutional ruling)
- Bellotti v. Baird, 428 U.S. 132 (1976) (state interests and values may justify limitations when avoiding federal questions)
- Barenboim v. Starbucks Corp., 698 F.3d 104 (2d Cir. 2012) (certification appropriate when state-law questions are determinative and novel)
- Travelers Ins. Co. v. 633 Third Assocs., 14 F.3d 114 (2d Cir. 1994) (predicting state court resolution informs federal decisions)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Mallela, 372 F.3d 500 (2d Cir. 2004) (when state law undecided, predict state court outcome or certify)