The Second Amendment Foundation got some much-needed support from twenty state attorneys general in their efforts to persuade the Supreme Court to hear an appeal of the Kachalsky v. Cacace decision. That’s the New York case — argued for the SAF by Alan Gura — recently decided by the Second Circuit in favor of the state. Which means Empire State gun owners will have to continue to show “proper cause” if they want to (legally) carry a gun outside the home for the foreseeable future. Here’s the SAF’s press release:
BELLEVUE, WA – Twenty state attorneys general have filed an amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court in support of the Second Amendment Foundation’s petition for a Writ of Certiorari in a case challenging New York’s gun permitting statute, along with several other interested parties that have filed their own briefs . . .
The case is known as Kachalsky v. Cacace and was argued before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. SAF is represented by attorney Alan Gura, who won both the Heller and McDonald Second Amendment cases before the Supreme Court.
“We are delighted at the support being shown by attorneys general in Alaska, Alabama, Florida, Oklahoma, Nebraska, New Mexico and 13 other states, and particularly for the leadership of Virginia Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli in bringing them all together,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb. “This case is all about an individual’s right to carry a firearm outside the home for personal protection, and it is gratifying to see so much support.”
In addition to the brief filed by the attorneys general, supporting amicus briefs have also been filed by the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence represented by former Attorney General Edwin Meese III, the National Rifle Association represented by former Solicitor General Paul D. Clement, plus the American Civil Rights Union, Academics for the Second Amendment, Cato Institute, the Second Amendment Preservation Association, New Jersey Second Amendment Society and Commonwealth Second Amendment, Inc.
“This is an important case,” Gottlieb said, “and that’s why so many parties are interested and supportive of our issue.”
SAF and the five individual plaintiffs are challenging whether the state can arbitrarily restrict the Second Amendment right to bear arms outside the home by requiring people to prove a special need to the satisfaction of a government official.
“Our case is about equal protection and the arbitrary authority of government officials to essentially decide on a whim whether average citizens can have the means of self-defense outside the confines of their home,” Gottlieb said. “Most crimes happen away from the home, and it is in public places and on public streets where a citizen is most likely to encounter a life-threatening situation where he or she might have to defend themselves.”