MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDERI. INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. (“NYSRPA”), Robert Nash, and Brandon Koch (together with Nash, the “Individual Plaintiffs”) bring this action under 42 U.S.C. §1983, alleging that Defendants George P. Beach II and Richard J. McNally, Jr. violated Plaintiffs Nash and Koch’s Second Amendment rights when they refused to grant them licenses to carry a firearm outside the home for self-defense. (Dkt. No. 31,5).1 Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as costs and attorneys’ fees. (Id.47). On March 26, 2018, Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, (Dkt. No. 19), primarily asserting that Plaintiffs’ claims fail as a matter of law because this Court is bound by the Second Circuit’s holding in Kachalsky v. County of Westchester, 701 F.3d 81 (2d Cir. 2012). Plaintiffs oppose the motion, but concede that this Court is bound by Kachalsky. (Dkt. No. 26, at 7-8, 11). With leave of the Court, amicus curiae Everytown for Gun Safety (“Everytown”) has filed a brief in support of Defendants’ motion. (Dkt. No. 25). For the reasons below, Defendants’ motion is granted.II. BACKGROUND2A. Firearm Regulations in New York StateNew York law generally prohibits the possession of a firearm3 absent a license. (Dkt. No. 31,15 (citing N.Y. Penal Law §§265.01 and 265.20(a)(3))). A general member of the public may apply for a handgun carry license (the “License”) to carry a concealed handgun for the purposes of self-defense, which a licensing officer must approve. (Id.16). A licensing officer must determine whether a person meets the statutory requirements of New York Penal Law §400.00 before the officer can grant a license. (Id.
16-17). New York Penal Law §400.00(2)(f) requires that an applicant show that “proper cause exists for the issuance thereof.” (Id.18). Some licensing officers note restrictions on the license, such as “hunting and target, ” and refer to those licenses as “ restricted licenses.” (Id.19). These licenses “allow the licensee to carry a firearm only when engaged in those specified activities” but do not “permit the carrying of a firearm in public for the purpose of self-defense.” (Id.). Licensing officers have “some discretion in determining what constitutes ‘proper cause, ‘” but “this discretion is cabined by the significant body of New York case-law.” (Id.20). Under that caselaw, the applicant must “demonstrate a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community” to satisfy the proper cause standard. (Id.).B. Plaintiff NYSRPAPlaintiff NYSRPA “has at least one member” who “would forthwith carry a firearm outside the home for self-defense, ” but the member(s) cannot “ satisfy the ‘proper cause’ requirement.” (Id.40). NYSRPA is “organized to support and defend the right of New York residents to keep and bear arms.” (Id.12). The New York firearm regulations limiting the “public carrying of firearms” is a direct “affront to [its] central mission.” (Id.). Both Nash and Koch are members of NYSRPA. (Id.).C. Plaintiffs Robert Nash and Brandon KochPlaintiffs Nash and Koch do not fall within any exception under New York Penal Law §265.20 to New York’s ban on carrying firearms in public. (Id.
