## Facts

- New York generally prohibits handgun possession, especially outside the home or place of business, absent a license issued under N.Y. Penal Law § 400.00.
- To obtain an unrestricted concealed-carry license for public carry, an applicant had to show “proper cause,” interpreted as a special need for self-protection distinguishable from the general public.
- Individual plaintiffs applied in Westchester County for full-carry concealed-handgun licenses to carry in public for general self-defense.
- Licensing officials denied the applications for failure to demonstrate “proper cause.”
- Four plaintiffs did not attempt to claim a special need distinct from the general public.
- A fifth plaintiff asserted heightened risk based on being a transgender woman, but the licensing officer found the showing insufficient due to lack of reported threats or specific incidents.
- Plaintiffs and the Second Amendment Foundation, Inc. (SAF) sued, alleging the “proper cause” requirement violated the Second Amendment on its face and as applied.
- The district court held SAF lacked standing and granted summary judgment to defendants; plaintiffs appealed, and the county cross-appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether New York’s “proper cause” requirement for a public concealed-carry license violates the Second Amendment on its face.
2. Whether the “proper cause” requirement violates the Second Amendment as applied to the individual plaintiffs.
3. What level of constitutional scrutiny applies to restrictions on public concealed carry, and whether the requirement survives that scrutiny.
4. Whether SAF had organizational or associational standing to sue.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit affirmed summary judgment for defendants and left undisturbed the ruling that SAF lacked standing.
- The court held the “proper cause” requirement did not violate the Second Amendment, either facially or as applied.
- The court used a two-step framework: (1) whether the law burdens conduct protected by the Second Amendment as historically understood; (2) if so, whether the law survives appropriate means-end scrutiny.
- The court treated self-defense in the home as the Second Amendment’s core protection and concluded public concealed carry was outside that core or at most at the periphery.
- Applying intermediate scrutiny, the court held the requirement was substantially related to important governmental interests in public safety and crime prevention.
- As applied, the plaintiffs failed because they did not allege or support a qualifying special need distinct from the general public under the state standard.

## Legal Principles

- Second Amendment challenges may be analyzed by asking (1) whether protected conduct is burdened and (2) if so, applying an appropriate level of scrutiny based on the burden and the conduct’s proximity to the Amendment’s core.
- The “core” Second Amendment interest was treated as law-abiding citizens’ right to possess arms in the home for self-defense; regulations focused on public concealed carry were reviewed less stringently.
- Intermediate scrutiny applies where the regulation does not substantially burden the core right; the government must show the law is substantially related to an important governmental interest.
- Public safety and crime prevention are important governmental interests supporting regulation of public carrying of handguns.
- A discretionary “may-issue” licensing condition limiting unrestricted public carry to applicants demonstrating a special need can satisfy intermediate scrutiny where it aims to reduce public carriage and attendant risks.
- An organization lacks standing absent a distinct injury to itself or satisfaction of associational-standing requirements.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit upheld New York’s requirement that applicants show “proper cause” to obtain an unrestricted concealed-carry license for public self-defense, holding that the requirement either did not burden the Second Amendment’s core or, in any event, survived intermediate scrutiny as substantially related to public safety and crime prevention; the plaintiffs’ as-applied claims failed for lack of a supported special need, and the organizational plaintiff lacked standing.


Kachalsky v. County of Westchester, 701 F.3d 81 (2d Cir. 2012)