14 N.Y.3d 743 (2010)
The case addresses the interpretation of what constitutes a ‘substantial constitutional question’ sufficient to warrant an appeal as of right to the New York Court of Appeals under Article 6, § 3 (b) (1) of the New York Constitution and CPLR 5601 (b).
Summary
Alan Kachalsky appealed the denial of his application for a concealed carry pistol license, arguing that the ‘proper cause’ requirement of New York Penal Law § 400.00 (2) (f) violated the Second Amendment. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal sua sponte, finding that no substantial constitutional question was directly involved. Judge Smith dissented, arguing that the Second Amendment issues raised were indeed substantial, especially in light of the Supreme Court’s recent holdings and pending cases on the Second Amendment’s applicability to the states. The dissent contended that the court was improperly using its discretion to avoid hearing a case it was obligated to hear under the New York Constitution.
Facts
Alan Kachalsky applied for a license to carry a concealed pistol or revolver in New York. His application was denied because he failed to demonstrate ‘proper cause’ as required by New York Penal Law § 400.00 (2) (f). Kachalsky argued that this ‘proper cause’ requirement infringed upon his Second Amendment rights.
Procedural History
Kachalsky’s challenge to the denial of his pistol license application was rejected by the lower courts. He then appealed to the New York Court of Appeals as of right, asserting that his appeal directly involved the construction of the United States Constitution. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal sua sponte, determining that no substantial constitutional question was directly involved.
Issue(s)
Whether the denial of a pistol license based on the ‘proper cause’ requirement of New York Penal Law § 400.00 (2) (f) raises a ‘substantial constitutional question’ regarding the Second Amendment, thereby entitling the applicant to an appeal as of right to the New York Court of Appeals under Article 6, § 3 (b) (1) of the New York Constitution and CPLR 5601 (b).
Holding
No, because the Court of Appeals determined, without further explanation, that the constitutional questions presented were not ‘substantial’ enough to warrant an appeal as of right.
Court’s Reasoning
The majority opinion provides no reasoning, simply stating that the appeal is dismissed because no substantial constitutional question is directly involved. Judge Smith’s dissent argues that the court is incorrectly interpreting the meaning of “substantial constitutional question.” Smith asserts that the Second Amendment issues are indeed substantial, especially considering the Supreme Court granted certiorari in McDonald v. City of Chicago to determine whether the Second Amendment applies to the states. Smith also points to District of Columbia v. Heller, arguing that it provides fair ground for litigation regarding whether ‘proper cause’ requirements for carrying concealed weapons are consistent with the Second Amendment. Smith contends that the court is improperly using its discretion to decide whether to hear the appeal, when the Constitution grants the appellant the right to have the appeal heard. Judge Smith stated, “I think, however, that petitioner has a constitutional right to have us hear this appeal, and that’s all there is to it.”