1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Twenty state attys, several others file briefs supporting saf appeal

Discussion in 'Legal' started by Cavalier Knight, Feb 14, 2013.

  1. Cavalier Knight

    Cavalier Knight Well-Known Member

    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."

    The Second Amendment Foundation (Second Amendment Foundation Online) is the nation's oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control. In addition to the landmark McDonald v. Chicago Supreme Court Case, SAF has previously funded successful firearms-related suits against the cities of Los Angeles; New Haven, CT; New Orleans; Chicago and San Francisco on behalf of American gun owners, a lawsuit against the cities suing gun makers and numerous amicus briefs holding the Second Amendment as an individual right.
  2. bushmaster1313

    bushmaster1313 Well-Known Member

    This case goes way beyond the Right to Carry outside the home.

    The real question is whether the government can require the individual to justify they have a need to exercises a right or whether the existence of a right is all the justification needed for its exercise.
  3. usmarine0352_2005

    usmarine0352_2005 Well-Known Member


    What's the chance of SCOTUS taking this case and if so what type of timeline are we looking at?
  4. Dave Workman

    Dave Workman Well-Known Member

    If SCOTUS takes the case, it might be a year before arguments are heard. It might also be next month. Who could know for sure?

    I did an examiner column on this Thursday here.

    The important thing to keep in perspective is that if SCOTUS takes the case and rules favorably, it will smash arbitrary laws in NY, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, California and other states where there is currently a discretionary permitting system at work.

    You can bet those states will have their AGs working overtime against the case.

    This is knock down, drag out bare knuckles brawling.

    Keep an eye on my examiner column, TheGun Mag.com and the SAF website.
  5. usmarine0352_2005

    usmarine0352_2005 Well-Known Member


    So is this case up for SCOTUS to take if they choose too?
  6. brboyer

    brboyer Well-Known Member

    Yes, SCOTUS selects all cases it hears. They do not have to take any.
  7. Phatty

    Phatty Well-Known Member

    The odds of the Supreme Court taking this case were greatly improved when the 7th Circuit recently ruled that the 2A extends to the carrying of firearms in public, thus creating somewhat of a split beween the 2nd and 7th Circuits.

    If the Supreme Court does take the case, arguments will most likely take place this fall (around November 2013) and a decision will likely be issued in June 2014.
  8. RetiredUSNChief

    RetiredUSNChief Well-Known Member

    THIS will be a HUGE one, if it does go to the SC.
  9. Bubbles

    Bubbles Well-Known Member

    Our former attorney general was finally defeated last year. He would never have filed an amicus curaie brief in this case. The new one is exceptionally pro-RKBA.
  10. joeschmoe

    joeschmoe Well-Known Member

    deleted by me
  11. k_dawg

    k_dawg Well-Known Member

    The case really has zero to do with the Second Amendment.

    It has actually about the corruption and bigotry by certain government officials to treat citizens as unequals before the law.
  12. JERRY

    JERRY Well-Known Member

    this is what must be done.....law suits brought on by state's attorney generals....
  13. JTHunter

    JTHunter Well-Known Member

    How soon the SC hears this case (if they do) could be affected by "Dumbo's" changes to the bench.
    Hopefully, the Court will hear the case before any changes are made.
  14. P.O.2010

    P.O.2010 Well-Known Member

    The problem with bad law is that, like some physical deformities, the longer you wait to correct it the harder it becomes to make that correction. Eventually, no surgery, regardless of how radical it is, is able correct the defect.

    The time to have fought the Sullivan Law was within the first decade of its passage. Instead the law was accepted by those who had the power, the influence and the resources to challenge it. Why? Because in the beginning the law didn't have any effect on you if you were a white man with a good reputation in the community. The law was designed to empower New York City's crime lords and to suppress ethnic and religious minorities and it worked as designed. It was only in the mid to late twentieth century that an unrestricted type f (proper cause) license became hard to come by as politicians throughout much of the State decided to take advantage of the Unconstitutionally broad discretion granted them by Article 400 of the New York State Penal Law. The Sullivan Law and its equivalents in other states (NJ, MA, IL etc) have been in force for too long. The public has become accustomed to them and so have the courts.

    The Supreme Court is an institution made up of men and women. The Justices are sensitive to criticism and the very human need to be looked upon favorably. If the Supreme Court decides to hear Kachalsky and strikes down the so-called proper cause requirement contained within NYS PL ART 400 the Justices who voted in the majority will be pilloried in the press and subject to intense scorn and ridicule. They will be accused of facilitating the murder of children and held responsible for any increase in homicide, aggravated assault or robbery that occurs regardless of the circumstances. Obamacare was blessed off on by the Supreme Court despite the fact that it was clearly Unconstitutional, and therefore illegal, because of a fear on the part of the Chief Justice that striking the law down would make the court appear to be unresponsive to the public. I see a similar outcome in this case.

    I have no faith in the integrity of the nine men and women who sit on our nation's highest court. I believe that at the end of the day they will defer to the State of New York and allow the Sullivan Law to stand regardless of historical precedent and the Constitution. If I'm proven wrong I'll be very happy but I don't think I will be.
  15. Al Norris

    Al Norris Well-Known Member

  16. Phatty

    Phatty Well-Known Member

    Very disappointing. The anti-gun crowd as well as judges will be emboldened to pass and uphold stricter and stricter gun control laws by this denial.
  17. P.O.2010

    P.O.2010 Well-Known Member

    The Justices chose not to hear this case out of fear because deep down in their hearts they know what most are afraid to say, namely that the bonds that hold us together as a nation are collapsing.

    If the Supreme Court had heard this case and issued a ruling which invalidated Article 400 of the New York State Penal Law the Court would have attacked as having acted illegitimately and having overstepped its bounds by every major media outlet and political power broker in the country. The Justices would have faced accusations of complicity in every homicide committed with a firearm from the date of their ruling on forward and would have faced the prospect of being undermined by every politician in every major urban center in the United States.

    If the Supreme Court had heard this case and issued a ruling which held Article 400 of the New York State Penal Law to be constitutionally acceptable the Justices would have faced the wrath of the majority of rural and semi-rural Americans. As the years passed right to carry laws would be repealed or invalidated. Right to carry laws that had yet to be passed into law would never come into existence. The result would be outrage across a large portion of the country. The risk of politically motivated violence would be high.

    The Justices are human beings. Pride, greed, fear, indifference and a sense of superiority all play a role in their decisions. The decision not to hear this case was based on the fact that the Supreme Court didn't want to risk De-legitimizing itself further or sparking violent resistance to its ruling. If the Supreme Court, as it's currently constituted, ever renders a ruling on the right to carry a firearm outside the home I'll be very surprised.
  18. TheSaint

    TheSaint Well-Known Member

    P.O.2010 is right on the money. We are witnessing a bifurcation of American culture. At no time since WWII has the upper and upper-middle classes been so disconnected from the suffering of the middle class and below. They live in gated communities with armed guards or in the case of the President/Congress/Supreme Court/Bloomberg et all, with SS details. There's a lack of common value systems that were held together by previous generations as many young men and women grow up without fathers, don't attend church or other civic groups, vote in smaller and smaller numbers, etc. Our nation has no great rallying point at the moment that binds people together, other than the ongoing misery of widespread poverty, joblessness, gang crime, illegal immigration, ever soaring public and private debts, drug abuse, mental health issues and countless other scourges that are currently tearing the fabric of the nation in two.

    The SCOTUS is merely acting in a manner which deflects from the reality of the situation, which is to say, things are grim, could someone else please deal with this? Not to be a debbie downer, but to be honest, your friends, family and neighbors are the people you need to be counting on in such tough times, as we can not expect our government to solve our most pressing issues.

    While I'm no anarchist and I love the rule of law as much as any other citizen, the ongoing attacks on liberty (drones, wiretapping, gun control, heck people control in general) are largely going unchecked.

    What matters now is that you take care of your family, your friends and your neighbors. Government is fundamentally flawed and the chickens are coming home to roost in more ways than we can comprehend.
  19. hnk45acp

    hnk45acp Well-Known Member

    Correct me if I'm wrong but the Court may be waiting on a case like Chicago. Heller affirmed the right to own a gun inside your home only, so the right to bear arms outside has not been affirmed. To take the NY case which is more of a may issue vs. a shall issue case would be putting the cart before the horse, legally speaking.
  20. Phatty

    Phatty Well-Known Member

    I agree that the Supreme Court would much rather review the Illinois case instead of the New York case, because the Illinois law is a straightforward ban. But, there is no guarantee that the Illinois law will be appealed, and after denial of Kachalsky, the odds of Illinois appealing to the Supreme Court went down significantly.

    From the perspective of Illinois gun grabbers, why bother appealing the 7th Circuit's ruling when you can just set up a may-issue scheme that is comparable to a total ban?

Share This Page