In Kachalsky v. County of Westchester (2d Cir. Nov. 27, 2012) the Second Circuit Court of Appeals found that:
“The proper cause requirement falls outside the core Second Amendment protections identified in Heller. New York’s licensing scheme affects the ability to carry handguns only in public, while the District of Columbia ban applied in the home “where the need for defense of self,family, and property is most acute.” (citing Heller, 554 U.S. at 628).
The court in Kachalsky reasoned that:
“This is a critical difference. The state’s ability to regulate firearms and, for that matter, conduct, is qualitatively different in public than in the home.”
Therefore the “proper cause” requirement was permissible.
In the Moore decision, Judge Posner writing for the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, chided the Second Circuit’s reasoning in upholding the “proper cause”/may issue provision.
“The New York gun law upheld in Kachalsky, although one of the nation’s most restrictive such laws, … is less restrictive than Illinois’s law. Our principal reservation about the Second Circuit’s analysis is its suggestion that the Second Amendment should have much greater scope inside the home than outside…” Moore v. Madigan (7th Cir. Dec. 11, 2012)
In fact the Seventh Circuit made it clear that while “the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute” in the home, id. at 3036 (emphasis added); 554 U.S. at 628, but that doesn’t mean it is not acute outside the home.”
The court in fact stated that:
“[A] Chicagoan is a good deal more likely to be attacked on a sidewalk in a rough neighborhood than in his apartment on the 35th floor of the Park Tower. A woman who is being stalked or has obtained a protective order against a violent ex-husband is more vulnerable to being attacked while walking to or from her home than when inside. She has a stronger self-defense claim to be allowed to carry a gun in public than the resident of a fancy apartment building … has a claim to sleep with a loaded gun under her mattress.” (emphasis added) Moore
Anti-gun commenters, like Patrick Charles, who claim that the decision in Moore supports “May Issue” concealed carry restrictions completely misunderstand what Judge Posner was saying about the Kachalsky case ruling and are flatly wrong in their analysis of the decision.
At least in the Seventh Circuit, May-Issue laws are clearly unconstitutional under Moore.