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.”
If they win this would set precedent to overturn every law, like in CA where people need to bribe, eerrr I mean meet with the sheriff.
I agree criminals should not have guns, but if you are law abiding, there should be no reason to not be able to carry. Also They will be looking into the costs. NTC costs somewhere around $500 in fees, where the rest of the state is like $125. They will push for a ruling which could force other states to adopt the you can only charge what it costs to run the program rule.
Criminals should be in jail! Once out of jail, they are no longer criminals and have the same rights you and I have. This is why I don’t believe in background checks.
I actually had a gun grabber tell me the other day that background checks are a good thing because even though criminals still get guns, it keeps them out of licensed gun dealers. After a long string of asking him why it’s better for them to get a Glock from the trunk of some guys car than to get the same Glock from a FFL, he kept insisting that “it’s just better that they aren’t buying guns from normal gun stores”.
eh? what? No they don’t. If they Are convicted Felons, they don’t have the same Rights you do. They Are liable to be searched at any time, they have no voting rights, and are prohibited from owning any weapon. and They let them out because they served their time or are required to let them out if they don’t pose a threat and they need the space for more serious criminals.
If they Are convicted Felons, they don’t have the same Rights you do. They Are liable to be searched at any time, they have no voting rights, and are prohibited from owning any weapon.
All of which is unconstitutional, which is what Daniel was saying. If a person is too dangerous to have a weapon, they are too dangerous to be loose where they can harm people. If they are deemed safe to release to the public, then they have their full rights restored.
As a side note, USA is one of the few democratic countries which prevents its criminals from voting. In most other places, even if you’re in for life, you still get a vote. And it makes perfect sense – otherwise it is too easy to disenfranchise a large group of people by simply making something that they do illegal, which can be done by a simple majority in the Congress. To give a simple example that would be on-topic for this website – if, tomorrow, the most restrictive AWB proposal becomes law, how many commenters here will notc comply on principle? And then they would all be felons, and hence ineligible to vote…
Didn’t the 7th Circuit case regarding permits in Illinois create one of those “circuit splits” that virtually guarantee that SCOTUS will deal with the issue eventually? I don’t think that SCOTUS was looking for any new 2nd Amendment cases, but a split changes the game.
This. I was wondering this exact same question, Mike.
I don’t think there is necessarily a split.
The 7th circuit basically instructed Illinois to implement some form of legal carry outside the home (i.e. IL’s total ban is unconstitutional). It’s been a little while since I read the opinion, but I don’t recall that it had to be “shall issue”. They just said that “no carry” is not OK.
The 2nd circuit said that “may issue” is OK.
“No carry bad” does not necessarily conflict with “may issue good”.
Gura has been my hero since Heller…we are talking superman hero in my book
Do not forget that this case (Kachalsky v. Cacace) has a 4th circuit court case in conflict with it (Woollard) and a 7th circuit ruling against Illinois’s concealed carry ban, penned by a leading jurist, Posner. So this is no long shot.
Woollard is a trial court decison that has been appealed by Maryland to the 7th, and therefore does not create a circuit split as it is not binding on any other federal court. It has been cited as persuasive authority, specifically the trial court’s conclusion that the only “good cause” needed to exercise one’s second amendment right is the existence of the right itself, a pithy statement that has an inherent indisputable logic.
Correct. My bad.
How long will this take?
The first step in getting a case to the Supreme Court is to convince it to grant certiorari, which is the stage we are at now. The court will usually decide these petitions befor the end of its current term in June. If cert is granted, then the briefing cycle begins. Oral argument is possible in the next term, but not terribly likely. So look at a couple more years.
Which is absurd. Bills should be reviewed for Constitutionality before they are signed into law. It’s ridiculous that the government set up a nice little system where they can violate the Constitution as much as they want and you just have to raise tons of money and hope that you can get the SCOTUS to hear the case and HOPE that they’ll rule in favor of the Constitution.
Yup, this is a big problem. On top of waiting for them to pass the law, you then have to solve the “standing” problem. This is an annoyance in 2nd Amendment cases but it’s a huge problem when it comes to 4th Amendment “surveillance state” cases. For instance, you can’t sue the government for secret surveillance of your e-mails, because you can’t show they’re doing it, because it’s secret.
Is there a list of which 25 AGs are supporting the SAF appeal? I’m curious who the other 13 are.
Here’s the actual amicus brief; the first page lists the states who have signed on to it: http://goo.gl/pBWPW
Thanks Matt and .9mm, I was fixing to ask this.
Sad to not see Tennessee on there but this is still great news.
The Cootch is commonly derided here in the OD (three guesses by whom), but he’s looking like the MAN of the moment to me!
The amicus brief can be found on The Firing Line, Law and Civil Rights forum. Here is a link. http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5415910#post5415910
It runs 25 pages and is rather elegantly written.
By the way, in case it is in any way unclear, there could scarcely be a better place to put your money than the SAF. If there is any doubt of that, simply visit their home page at http://www.saf.org/ and look at the list of “SAF sues…” headlines. They are the front lines of this fight.
Seconded, SAF is the best!
This hardly helps me as a student in NYS, since you can’t bring a handgun into NYS that’s not registered here. So my Maine permit or a potential future NY non-resident permit would both be useless.
Well, actions have consequences. You chose to go to school in a horrifically anti-Constitution state. I could take jobs in anti-Constitution states and whine about how I no longer have my rights, or I can keep looking for jobs in pro-Constitution states – I choose the latter.
The timelines posted above are incorrect. A decision to grant Cert should come in April. If granted, oral argument would likely be in October -December of this year with a decision at the end of June 2014.
-Gene