Response to Defendant’s
Notice of Supplemental Authority
COMES NOW THE PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, Christopher Baker, and submitsthis Response to Defendants Notice of Supplemental Authority. Defendantssubmitted as supplemental authority
the Second Circuit’s recent opinion in
Kachalsky v. County of Westchester
, ___ F.3d ___ (2nd Cir. 2012). While
may superficially appear to support Defendants arguments, its analysisactually bolsters
position for at least three reasons:1.
Despite Defendants’ attempt to analogize
to this case, the “proper cause” requirement is not nearly as restrictive as Hawaii’s “exceptionalcase” requirement, which must be satisfied in additional to good or “proper cause.” “New York State courts have defined the term [proper cause] to
include carrying a handgun for target practice, hunting, or self-
at 9. In contrast, Hawaii simply does not issue permits to private citizensfor any purpose. See ER 94-105. Moreover, Plaintiff Baker has establishedhe has a special need to carry a firearm unlike the plaintiffs in
“Defendants’ determinations that Plaintiffs do not have a special need for
self-protection are unchallenged."
. at 26.2.
the Court ruled against applying prior restraint largely because
ontention that the proper cause requirement grants licensingofficials unbridled discretion . . . a red herring. Plaintiffs admit that there is