|
''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.〔(Complaint - Kachalsky v. Cacace, District Court )〕 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. 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, (pistol or revolver ) by any person when proper cause exists for the issuance thereof". 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.〔 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.〔 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."〔 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Kachalsky v. Cacace」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|