Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword or section
Like this
1Activity
P. 1
Kachalsky v Cacace (NY) - CA2 Plaintiffs-Apellants-Cross-Appellees Reply Brief

Kachalsky v Cacace (NY) - CA2 Plaintiffs-Apellants-Cross-Appellees Reply Brief

Ratings: (0)|Views: 106|Likes:
Published by Michael Zeleny
Kachalsky v Cacace (NY) - CA2 Plaintiffs-Apellants-Cross-Appellees Reply Brief, 2 April 2012
Kachalsky v Cacace (NY) - CA2 Plaintiffs-Apellants-Cross-Appellees Reply Brief, 2 April 2012

More info:

Published by: Michael Zeleny on Aug 11, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

08/11/2012

pdf

text

original

 
IN THE
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
A
LAN
K
ACHALSKY
, C
HRISTINA
N
IKOLOV
, J
OHNNIE
N
ANCE
, A
NNA
M
ARCUCCI
-N
ANCE
,E
RIC
D
ETMER
, S
ECOND
A
MENDMENT
F
OUNDATION
, I
NC
.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants-Cross-Appellees,v.
C
OUNTY OF
W
ESTCHESTER
,
 Defendant-Appellee-Cross-Appellant,and 
S
USAN
C
ACACE
, J
EFFREY
A. C
OHEN
, A
LBERT
L
ORENZOR
, R
OBERT
K. H
OLDMAN
,
 Defendants-Appellees.
!!
!      !
 
RESPONSE AND REPLY BRIEF FORPLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS-CROSS-APPELLEES
Alan GuraG
URA
& P
OSSESSKY
, PLLC
 Attorneys for Plaintiffs-Appellants-Cross-Appellees
101 North Columbus Street, Suite 405Alexandria, Virginia 22314703-835-9085
 Date Completed: April 3, 2012On Appeal from the United States District Court  for the Southern District of New York (White Plains)
11
-
3642
-
CV 
(
L
)
11-3962-cv 
(
 XAP
)
Case: 11-3642 Document: 89 Page: 1 04/03/2012 570071 71
 
CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
The Second Amendment Foundation, Inc. has no parentcorporations. No publicly traded company owns 10% or more of appellant corporation’s stock.Dated: April 3, 201
2
Respectfully submitted,Second Amendment Foundation, Inc.By: /s/ Alan Gura Alan GuraCounsel for Appellants/Cross-Appellees
Case: 11-3642 Document: 89 Page: 2 04/03/2012 570071 71
 
TABLE OF CONTENTSTable of Authorities.........................................iiiStandard of Review..........................................1Summary of Argument.......................................1 Argument..................................................7I.P
OST
-
ELLER
 
C
OURTS
C
ONTINUE TO
U
PHOLD THE
R
IGHT TO
B
EAR
 A 
RMS
O
UTSIDE THE
H
OME
............................7II.O
PINIONS
D
ENYING THE
E
XISTENCE OF THE
R
IGHT TO
B
EAR
 A 
RMS
C
ONTRADICT OR
M
ISREAD
S
UPREME
C
OURT
P
RECEDENT
........10III.P
ROHIBITING
 A 
LL
H
 ANDGUN
C
 ARR
H
 AS
N
EVER
B
EEN
C
ONSISTENT
W
ITH THE
R
IGHT TO
B
EAR
 A 
RMS
................16 A.
Heller
Acknowledged the Long Legal Tradition of Protecting the Right to Carry Defensive Arms,Including Handguns...........................16B.Tradition Supports Neither General HandgunCarry Prohibition, Nor New York’s Formof Restriction................................23IV.P
RIOR
R
ESTRAINT
D
OCTRINE
 A 
PPLIES TO THE
S
ECOND
 A 
MENDMENT
...................................29 V.T
HE
“P
ROPER
C
 AUSE
 
S
TANDARD
F
 AILS
 A 
NY 
L
EVEL OF
M
EANS
-E
NDS
S
CRUTINY 
.................................33 A.Defendants Confirm That the “Proper Cause”Requirement Is Unsupported By a ValidGovernmental Interest.........................33
i
Case: 11-3642 Document: 89 Page: 3 04/03/2012 570071 71

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->