BREAKING: Supremes Refuse to Hear Kachalsky Appeal, NY’s “Proper Cause” Requirement Stands

The US Supreme Court refused to hear the Second Amendment Foundation’s appeal of Kachalsky v. Cacace, the case challenging New York state’s requirement that individuals must show “proper cause” when applying for a concealed carry licence. From bloomberg.com: “High court review of the New York case would have threatened public-possession restrictions in as many as 10 states. Lower courts are divided on the measures, making it likely the Supreme Court will consider the issue at a later point…In upholding New York’s law, which requires applicants to show ‘proper cause’ to get a permit to carry a weapon, a federal appeals court pointed to what it called ‘a longstanding tradition of states regulating firearm possession and use in public because of the dangers posed to public safety.’”

61 Responses to BREAKING: Supremes Refuse to Hear Kachalsky Appeal, NY’s “Proper Cause” Requirement Stands

  1. avatarProfShadow says:

    Frack.

  2. avatarDroppin Truth Bombz says:

    WTF SCOTUS…

  3. avatarDavis Thompson says:

    This does not bode well for an overturning of the NY SAFE Act.

    • avatarData McBits says:

      On the contrary. This case may have been too weak for the court. There are many other lawsuits winding their way up to SCOTUS through various circuits. It’s possible they’re just waiting for something like the case against the NY SAFE Act to really hit it out of the park.

      The fact that they declined to hear it is disappointing, but not as disappointing as their refusal to comment or give any sort of explanation.

  4. avatarTotenglocke says:

    Dear SCOTUS,

    FOAD. No, really – die. You are the lowest of the low and deserve to be punished for your crimes against Americans.

    Sincerely,

    All Americans that believe in upholding the Constitution

    • avatarBLAMMO says:

      Wait. No really, wait at least 4 years, then die.

      • avatarTotenglocke says:

        Why? We already saw with Obamacare that justices appointed by Republicans are just as willing to piss on the Constitution as the ones appointed by Democrats.

        • avatarJoe Grine says:

          Whatever you can say about Roberts and his approval of Obamacare, there is still a huge difference between the views of the conservative justices and the Obama appointees. You wont recognize America if Obama (or any other democrat) gets to appoint any more justices.

        • avatarTotenglocke says:

          Joe, you can keep making excuses, but Republicans are just as bad and just as anti-Constitution as the Democrats, they just sometimes disagree over what parts of the Constitution to use as toilet paper.

          Adhering to our current one-party system will only lead to tyranny. Sadly, I doubt enough Americans will wake up and throw off the old system before it’s too late.

        • avatarNate says:

          Republicans have not made their appointments as wisely or something, but give me a Thomas every time over a Sotomayor. I might not agree with every ruling he has issued but on the whole they are a heck of a lot better. He is leading the charge to roll back the commerce clause and hopefully overturn Wickard v. Filburn.

        • avatarDJ says:

          The problem is that when the Dems control the White House every appointment to the Supreme Court is an extremist, and when the Reps are in control every appointment is a moderate.

          Compare Kagan or the Justice from La Raza (Sotomayor) to Roberts. You’ve got two appointees that are ideologues and one moderate.

    • avatarWilliam Burke says:

      QUICK! Before they institute NOOSE CONTROL!!

  5. avatarGrasshopper says:

    “a federal appeals court pointed to what it called ‘a longstanding tradition”

    Legal slavery was a longstanding tradition, too. WTF does a longstanding tradition have to do with infringing on one’s natural rights that have been additionally protected in the Constitution?

    Stupid lawyers. Illegal laws.

    • avatarMarcusDFalco says:

      As expected, pressure by Obama administration has postponed this challenge until he can further stack the deck against 2A. The Republic is dead!

  6. avatarPantera Vazquez says:

    Dan-the photo you used above seems a wee bit out of date.

    Pining for an earlier court?

  7. avatarPascal says:

    This is not a surprise because SCOTUS has never wanted to take a case when things are still going through the state courts and legislative process as well as in DC.

    SCOTUS has never wanted to get into the middle of a fight, they will wait till the battles are done.

    If Newtown had not happened and then all the post Newtown BS around gun control, they would have taken the case. Now, we will need to wait at least one more year.

    • avatarDave says:

      This may conceivably change if Illinois appeals, but it would also be a narrower case, which is something they might actually prefer.

      • avatarNor'Easter says:

        This is true Dave. I thought that this case – with all it’s merits – was putting the cart before the horse. The case would have been better if it challenged the NY Sullivan Law on the basis of not CCW but the fact that NO handgun can be possessed without an “unduly burdensome process” under “arbitrary and capacious” rules – even in the home. This would have been in line with McDonald and I think would have won. Go on to CCW after that.
        In the meantime, the grabbers are rejoicing and I’m bummed out.

    • avatarAmagi says:

      +1, I agree.

      Although SCOTUS is meant to be insulated from the “Court of Public Opinion” and the politics in general it unfortunately isn’t far removed enough because things like this still happen.

      They don’t want to make a politically charged decision like nullifying conceal carry laws in the 10 or so state where they are unconstitutionally denying self defense rights. Newtown obviously didn’t help.

      I think they will have to take up the case in the next couple of years, but for now, they are waiting.

      THIS IS WHY WE MUST CAPTURE THE SENATE. We need SCOTUS stacked with pro-2A judges.

      • avatarWill says:

        Correction: We need SCOTUS stacked with pro-Constitution judges.

        We need Judges that will actually look at original intent and such, not just which way the wind of politics, seen or unseen, blows.

    • avatarMatt in FL says:

      I realize that the practices of the SCOTUS are surrounded by murk and mystery, but do they often deny a hearing on a case on a particular subject if they think there is a “better” one coming down the pike?

      • avatarPascal says:

        Yes, they have if you look at their history. Not saying that is the case here. They do not like to rule when everything is in flux because they would rather have things work themselves out, or come to a conclusion.

        The current court is very sensitive about not being elected officials and rather have the lawmakers do the work. They do not like being the ones to make public policy or having the courts used as a weapon.

        • avatarJason says:

          Ok, I may be ignant… But isn’t that the purpose of SCOTUS?
          To decide what is right based on Law??

  8. avatarHenry Bowman says:

    And yet, many people still believe in “checks and balances.” It’s laughable. They’re all on the same team, folks!

    • avatarWR2A says:

      Henry,

      I have fought against believing what you said for a long time. I think it’s time to believe you now.

      We’re on our own, folks. No one will save us. No one will fight for us. We have no friends in high places of secular government. The cards are on the table.

      Now what?

  9. avatarCulpeper Kid says:

    Your right to keep and bear arms will not be infringed, if you are given permission.

  10. avatarmediocrates says:

    what further proof do we need that SCOTUS is there simply to expand the powers of the Federal government beyond the Constitution?

  11. avatarIn Memphis says:

    SCr0TUmS

    Fixed it.

    • avatarMMGG says:

      Empty ones, it seems.

    • avataruncommon_sense says:

      SCrOTUmS … there, that’s better. (Your typing had a slight clerical mistake.)

      I love it!

      If I had been drinking anything, I would have spit it out all over the keyboard. I am still laughing out loud as I type this. Thank you for the morning laugh!

      • avatarIn Memphis says:

        No problem! Glad I could help. I used the 0 in place of the O in case the spam filter told me to FAOD.

  12. The apparent arbitrariness that the Supreme Court has in reviewing cases is one of the things wrong with our system.

    • avatarTotenglocke says:

      That’s second. The biggest thing wrong with our system is that bills aren’t reviewed for constitutionality before they are signed into law. It’s set up to allow unconstitutional laws to be passed and then you have to raise a fortune for legal fees and pray that the SCOTUS is willing to actually do their job and hear the case.

      • avatarmiserylovescompany says:

        This.

        The reason I (and many others, I’m sure) have no faith in the jury box is because of court rulings like this and up in New York. The ruling despots that have infected the North know and understand this, which is why they ram legislation through, because they also know their citizens would not stand for it if it became public knowledge long enough to be debated.

        The grapes of wrath are growing to be a heavy, heavy vintage indeed….

      • avatarRalph says:

        The biggest thing wrong with our system is that bills aren’t reviewed for constitutionality before they are signed into law.

        They are supposed to be vetted by legislative counsel, but that’s only an opinion and counsel’s opinion can be wrong. Courts are not supposed to get involved with the legislative process. They adjudicate actual cases, and that’s it. It’s a crazy new concept called Separation of Powers. Look it up.

        • avatarTotenglocke says:

          It’s a crazy new concept called Separation of Powers. Look it up.

          Again, please cite the part of the Constitution that says the SCOTUS can only deem a law unconstitutional after it has been enacted. There is nothing preventing them from reviewing it after the House and Senate have signed off but before the President signs it into law.

  13. avatarJOE MATAFOME says:

    We already have this in RI and it’s about to get even worse.

  14. avatarTaco Ninja says:

    So interpretation of the Constitution is now about tradition and public safety? Well public safety would outlaw practice of Islam…ask the families of those who died on 9-11 about that. Yet it’s protected by the Constitution…and despite it being the worst mass murder in American history, we let Muslims worship their way. Why? Because the abuse of freedom of religion but a select few shouldn’t mean the rights are taken from the majority.

    Why do people see the 2nd Amendment differently?

  15. avatarMy Name Is Bob says:

    The list of intolerable grievances grows by the day. Prepare!

  16. avatarBilly Wardlaw says:

    Yes, the States traditionally have leeway to regulate the possession and carrying of firearms, but that is different from a State using those regulations to deny a civil right.

    “May Issue” States with “proper cause” requirements are just covering the denial of a civil right with red tape. This is exactly the kind of case the Supreme Court should be hearing.

    • avatarRalph says:

      This is exactly the kind of case the Supreme Court should be hearing.

      I’m sure that it will. There’s a conflict in the circuits that SCOTUS will have to resolve. I’m just not sure that it will resolve the conflict the way we want.

      • avatarDave says:

        Illinois is “no issue” right now, and whether it adopts a “shall issue” or a “may issue” law in response to the ruling seems to depend far more on their politics than the court decision itself. Other decisions were about “may issue” versus “shall issue”, so it’s a matter of interpretation whether they are in conflict with the 7th circuit.

  17. avatarSteve says:

    This entire “government” of ours is so broken that the only way to fix it it to competely start over from scratch. Thomas Jefferson warned us that this would happen, but to true to form, us FU**ING AMERICANS never listen.

  18. avatarDeRoy says:

    Seems to me the SCOTUS should be interpreting the Constitution as a form of guidance (permission/prohibition) to the States instead of letting the States sort it out, THEN ruling on the Constitutionality of what they’ve done. This SCOTUS kind of has it backwards. They should be telling the Elected Law Makers what they can and cannot do in accordance with the Constitution, THEN let the States sort it out. So, I am of the opinion that this would be better even than a Constitutional Review of individual laws, make it easier for Law Makers to formulate workable Laws instead of screwy, wild-hair-up-their-butts, idiot laws, and even save some money to the Taxpayers…OH!…NOW I see! The LAST thing the Fed wants to do is save Taxpayer money! Then there would be less rationale for raising Taxes and borrowing Trillions from the Communist Red Chinese….well, then, “Nevermind!”

    In the present Federal Government, they are all on the same side, and it ain’t the same side us ordinary Citizens are on.

    • avatarRalph says:

      Separation of Powers. Besides, the legislature is elected, the Court is not. Do you really want the unelected Court leading the parade? Would you feel the same if this was the Warren Court and not the Roberts Court?

      • avatarDeRoy says:

        Separation of Powers is the key to why it is done the way it is.
        If the Warren Court had been “leading the parade”, we would probably not be worrying about our gun rights these days, but about restrictions on arrow quiver capacity.
        Could the SCOTUS leading the parade be much worse than what Congress is doing?

  19. avatarAccur81 says:

    Not good.

  20. avatarRob says:

    Well then…

    Anyone else out there think that the SCOTUS has just washed its hands of the violence that’s becoming almost inevitable?

  21. avatarGov. William J. Le Petomane says:

    I wonder what liberals would think of having to show “proper cause” to exercise their other rights, like say voting. You can’t tell me that you can do more damage with a gun than you can with your vote.

  22. avatarDave says:

    It’s not like anyone knows how SCOTUS would rule if it took on the case. The Heller and McDonald cases were far less controversial. Handguns had been completely banned only in Chicago, DC, and a few smaller Illinois towns. There was no statewide ban anywhere in the US. So, for all the boost those cases gave to the 2nd Amendment, very few jurisdictions needed to change their laws as a result. Perhaps their greatest value was in preventing future bans and changing the tone of the debate.

    Now, with carrying, some two-thirds of the US population live in “shall issue” States, but the other third doesn’t. A ruling that carry permits must be “shall issue” would thus be much, much broader in scope. New York City residents would be able to carry in a heavily pedestrian urban environment. Are there really votes in SCOTUS for such a ruling, given that Heller and McDonald were 5-4 decisions? Maybe, but if not, they might either rule against or find a way to “split the difference” in some fairly drastic way.

    So, maybe it’s OK, for now at least.

    • avatarRalph says:

      ^^^^This.

      The Kachalsky case was not a slam-dunk for us. Kachalsky lost at every level. There will be better cases, and SCOTUS will hear them. Woollard, for example, is a better case. The plaintiff in Woollard was a crime victim, Kachalsky was not.

      The best case for us will be the new Illinois CCW law, which is likely to be restrictive may-issue. With Chicago’s history of legal avoidance and chicanery going back to McDonald and it’s aftermath, I expect that SCOTUS will enjoy getting involved when an IL crime victim is denied a permit.

  23. avatarCZJay says:

    Hey guys, we have been “regulating” human rights for a very long time now. Our excuse has been “public safety”. Since many years have gone by without any real challenges, we can now move on to using “tradition” as an excuse to “regulate” human rights. Obviously, this has always been “reasonable”.

  24. avatarPat says:

    Proper cause? Against the Constitution. Carry anyway. Better judged by twelve than carried by six.

  25. This one’s not as big a victory as your side had yesterday, but it’s something.

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.