Posted to NYC News on

Court Rules Individuals Do Not Have Constitutional Right to Carry a Concealed Handgun in Public

New York State Press Release

New York – Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman today announced that his office has won a major court victory in defense of New York State’s gun safety laws. In a decision in the case of Kachalsky, et al. v. Cacace, et al, a federal judge in the Southern District of New York rejected a constitutional challenge to New York’s handgun licensing statute, ruling that individuals do not have a constitutional right to carry a concealed handgun in public.

“Every day, my office fights to ensure all New Yorkers are safe and secure in their communities,” Attorney General Schneiderman said. “This means ensuring that our state’s gun laws are protected and vigorously enforced. This federal court decision is a victory for New York State law, the United States Constitution, and families across New York who are rightfully concerned about the scourge of gun violence that all too often plagues our communities.”

“This is a major victory for the public safety of all New Yorkers,” said Jackie Hilly, Executive Director of New Yorkers Against Gun Violence. “We applaud Attorney General Schneiderman for vigorously defending the state’s gun laws that clearly indicate that individuals have no constitutional right to carry dangerous, concealed weapons in public. For law enforcement officers and communities across this state, this decision means fewer deaths and injuries – it’s that simple.”

“This critical decision protects New York’s right to decide the conditions under which a concealed weapon may be carried,” said Richard M. Aborn, President of Citizens Crime Commission of New York City. “As a result of Attorney General Schneiderman’s aggressive defense of our state’s gun laws, our communities will be safer and more secure.”

In Kachalsky, et al. v. Cacace, et al, five individual plaintiffs residing in Westchester County, and one organization, the Second Amendment Foundation, Inc., argued that the “proper cause” provision of the New York law governing the issuance of licenses to carry concealed handguns in public violates their rights under the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as defined in two recent landmark decisions by the United States Supreme Court, District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago. The “proper cause” provision requires a license applicant to show “a special need for self protection distinguishable from that of the general community or of persons engaged in the same profession.”

The defendants in this case, four State Court judges who also serve as “licensing officers” under the New York statute, were represented by Attorney General Schneiderman’s office, which argued that the “proper cause” provision of the New York law did not violate the Second Amendment as described by the Supreme Court in Heller and McDonald. Judge Cathy Seibel agreed, ruling that the Second Amendment provides the right to keep arms for the purpose of self defense in the home, but does not extend to a right to carry concealed handguns in public.

The judge further ruled that even if the Second Amendment were read to cover such a right, the New York “proper cause” provision passes constitutional muster under the Heller and McDonald rulings because the law is substantially related to important governmental interests, namely the promotion of public safety and the prevention of crimes perpetrated with concealed handguns. Judge Seibel also ruled that the “proper cause” provision does not violate the Equal Protection clause of the constitution because it does not discriminate against handgun license applicants.

Accordingly, Judge Seibel granted the State defendants’ motion for summary judgment, and dismissed the plaintiffs’ case in its entirety.

The case was handled by Assistant Attorneys General Monica Connell and Anthony Tomari under the supervision of Bruce McHale, Deputy Bureau Chief of the New York City Litigation Bureau.

Related Articles

17 Comments

  • awacs

    THREE quotes from gun control supports, and NOT ONE from folks that oppose gun control? C’mon, Webby, you can do better than that!

    Hi Ho, Hi Ho, off to the Second Circuit we go!

  • A gun owning Jew

    Gun violence is not caused by people with a licensed to carry a conceeled handgun. Its by the thugs with illegal guns. If they know we mite have a gun under our jacket or in our purse. They would think twice before robbing us or worse. It’s been twenty years but I remember the riots. When the cops stood back and watch them attack and kill Jews for 3 days. I feel strongly that all Jewish homes should have a gun in the home kept locked in safe. Get proper training as insurance/last meshure to keep us safe.

  • Milhouse

    Fine, then people should just carry in the open. The word “home” does not appear in the second amendment, and there’s not a hint in it that it applies only at home. Or does the judge think that the right to free speech also applies only at home?

  • glad I live in a sane state

    foolishness! does anyone think for a minute that because there is a law against carrying a concealed weapon, the bad guys are going to follow that law? the only thing restrictive gun laws accomplish is disarming average civilians, depriving them of the ability to defend themselves. feh

    oh, and how much gun violence was there at that fun parade the other day? what? guns are illegal in nyc? oh…uhm…

  • DeClasse- Intellectual

    Why is it always those who follow the law are blaimed and called the problem people when the criminals get away with everything in the court system. After the weekends event, one might need to drive around in a tank to be safe. Those who use guns to commit crimes do not worry about permits or other regulations. A lot of home invasions, robberies and muggings would not occur if the prepertuator knew he could become a lead mine. It has been proven–more guns–less crimes and after last weekend

  • #4 said it

    I was about to write, but #4 said it better than I would have, so let me say “read #4”.

  • David Hompes

    Glock is an awesome weapon. It’s smooth, indestructibel, reliable and comes in a few different calibers.
    Way back I had it as a side arm in tzahal (Glock 19 – 9mm parabellum) and for decades I carry a Glock 17 (medium frame version of G19) concealed legally in 35 states.
    Where I disagree with Rabbi Kahane (obm) is here: he used to say “every Jew a 22”. I suggest most Jews should carry a glock.
    Oh yeah, my 2 cents about the NY concealed weapon statute:
    borscht mit dreck: the HYPOCRASY: every rasha has many avenues to obtain illegal weapons and the law abiding citizen is being stripped from the second amendment.

  • Chuchum Schneiderman

    “Every day, my office fights to ensure all New Yorkers are safe and secure in their communities,” Attorney General Schneiderman said.

    How many guns do you carry Mr. Schneiderman? How many guards are outside your house 24/7?

    “This decision means fewer deaths and injuries – it’s that simple.”

    The only thing that’s ”simple” is the idiot Jackie Hilly.

  • Mendy Hecht

    I assume these judges and Mr. Schneiderman are not stupid people, but how do you get around the plain meaning of the Second Amendment? It says clearly, “… to keep and bear arms…”

    So, let’s see: The last time I checked, “keep” meant “own” or have.“ ”Bear“ means ”physically hold or carry.“

    And obviously, the Framers meant that people should be allowed to keep guns at home and bear them in public. That’s just the common-sense plain meaning of the words.

    So I guess the gun-control people seized upon ”bear“ to outlaw _concealed_ weapons. That actually makes sense. In other words, if you’re ”bearing” your gun in public, you have to do so so that everyone sees it clearly, not hide it inside your coat pocket.

    I also think the Framers had rifles in mind, not handguns, but whatever. I still think this decision simply ignores the Constitution. If I were these people, I’d push for an Amendment.

  • DeClasse- Intellectual

    What these people who advocate gun contgrol like the Brady group forget is the (1) law obeying citizens will follow the law and will do what the law requires which is over 95% of the population. (2) the criminals will not obey any laws that are against their itnerests and they will have guns even if it is against the law. (3) The bleeding heart politcally coreect liberals like Bloomberg, Schneiderman and the judges of the court system let the criminals off lightly instead of slamming the door on them. Recently qwithin the last two years for example a seven time–yes the number–on major felony charges was given just a slap on the hand. He attacked a police officer with a gun but his partner saved the cop’s life by killling him. Why was he out on the street and that is a major part of the problem.

  • Milhouse

    Mendy, the advantage of concealed carry is that not everyone has to carry in order to be protected. If the muggers and rapists don’t know who’s carrying they will hesitate to attack anyone, so everyone benefits. Also, if you carry openly people will be panicking and calling the police, and you may end up being illegally arrested, or even shot by the police; it’s happened too many times.

  • DaasTorah

    The federal district court got it wrong in this case, but that is neither shocking nor surprising. There are federal challenges to individual gun carrying in many states and they likely will end up in front of the SCOTUS.

  • CH Gun owner

    This is the stupidest thing in the world! please explain why US states that easily allow their law abiding citizens to carry firearms have the lowest crime rates in the nation….
    Because why whould a thug try to attack rob kill or burglarize someone how may have a gun under their kappatah or in their purse it would be foolish of them.

    But here in NYC where it’s close to imposable to get a concealed weapons permit it’s open season all year long.
    stupid stupid mayor