Alan Gura Begins Attack on "May-Issue" Carry Laws
- Thread starter cbrgator
- Start date
- Status
svaz
Member
Geaux Gura!
(It's a Saints fan thing...)
(It's a Saints fan thing...)
bushmaster1313
Member
Smart to do this in NY/2nd Circuit
Two sure losses lead right to the Supreme Court!
BTW: I take personal offense that my generalized need for self protection is not considered "special" enough.
Two sure losses lead right to the Supreme Court!
BTW: I take personal offense that my generalized need for self protection is not considered "special" enough.
XD Fan
Member
Go, Alan!
Amen, Bushmaster.
Amen, Bushmaster.
Well truely my best wishes to all concerned.
But I am glad I live in Texas and please understand I am not trying to be smug here because I truely feel for you folks.
Frankly my head spins when I see what so many in liberal states go through just to have their second amendment rights considered and weighed in on.
But I am glad I live in Texas and please understand I am not trying to be smug here because I truely feel for you folks.
Frankly my head spins when I see what so many in liberal states go through just to have their second amendment rights considered and weighed in on.
bushmaster1313
Member
Isn't that an argument in favor of "shall issue"?:banghead:
Not if you believe that guns can commit crimes.
The language, "an important government interest," indicates a heightened level of scrutiny. Intermediate, not strict scrutiny, to be specific. It surprises me that the judge upheld the "may-issue" law, even after reviewing it under a heightened level of scrutiny.
For the judge to uphold this law under intermediate scrutiny, once she finds public safety and crime prevention to be an "important interest," she must also find that the may-issue law is "substantially related" to that interest. I haven't read her opinion, but I would love to see that justification. How exactly is a may-issue law substantially related to the important government interest of crime prevention? I do not follow.
The good news is her opinion is entirely irrelevant and merely a stepping stone, not the last word. The 2nd Circuit at the very least, if not the SCOTUS, will hear this case. This district court is merely a formality. Gura wants this case heard by our high court.
Curator
Member
Hey, its New Yawk! I'd be really surprised if a female Federal Judge in White Plains (of all places) did not find against the people having guns to protect themselves. They are all brainwashed by the public school system there and beyond hope. Besides, crooks injured in the commission of crime in NY are eligible for disability and worker's compensation. They also can use the State's court system and free lawyers to sue their victims. I left there 30 years ago and never looked back.
Prince Yamato
Member
If NY goes shall-issue, I will weep tears of joy.
All the Shall Issue Cases
I believe one of the strategies for Gura and others (2nd Amendment Foundation, NRA & etc.) is to sue in every state with a may/no issue law in the hope that one will be taken up by the high court. The foundation has been laid for this with Heller & McDonald so this is the next logical step. Since NY is the first to get a lower court decision it will be to the finish line quickest. NJ will be next as all indications are that the district court will announce its decision this month. The court of appeals would get both these and be done with them before same time next year and then SCOTUS can decide if they want to hear either or all lumped together and decide themselves by June of 2013. BTW, the two cases that may be taken by SCOTUS this month in this cycle are the snake guy in the national park case and the MD guy who hid his gun in the bushes. Both these guys are saying that their arrests should be voided because of Heller & McDonald. The court may hear them and the results could give us in the stupid states (i.e. NJ) the relief we seek.
I believe one of the strategies for Gura and others (2nd Amendment Foundation, NRA & etc.) is to sue in every state with a may/no issue law in the hope that one will be taken up by the high court. The foundation has been laid for this with Heller & McDonald so this is the next logical step. Since NY is the first to get a lower court decision it will be to the finish line quickest. NJ will be next as all indications are that the district court will announce its decision this month. The court of appeals would get both these and be done with them before same time next year and then SCOTUS can decide if they want to hear either or all lumped together and decide themselves by June of 2013. BTW, the two cases that may be taken by SCOTUS this month in this cycle are the snake guy in the national park case and the MD guy who hid his gun in the bushes. Both these guys are saying that their arrests should be voided because of Heller & McDonald. The court may hear them and the results could give us in the stupid states (i.e. NJ) the relief we seek.
parsimonious_instead
Member
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2010
- Messages
- 791
Interesting quirk about NY State with handguns. Because NYS is so deeply in love with "handgun registration" they want each and every handgun tied to your "pistol permit" (by default a permit to merely own and take to the range). You buy the handgun and submit a form to the County Clerk who leaves it with a judge to have it signed off on. Your newly purchased firearm waits inside your friendly dealer's vault until it's signed and you are sent a new permit with the gun's make model and serial printed on it. I don't know how many judges there are, but there are literally only one or two that sign these things promptly, the rest are indifferent or hostile to 2A, and therefore it's quite possible to wait 4-8 weeks before you can start taking the gun to the range.
Loosedhorse
member
This legal challenge may have a funny result.
If you go back far enough in Court cases, you will find a general opinion in many state courts that the licensing (or outlawing) of concealed carry was a valid government power.
The implication is that the state has NO legitimate power to limit open carry.
I wonder if that will be the ultimate outcome--supposing we haven't lost a conservative Justice by then.
If you go back far enough in Court cases, you will find a general opinion in many state courts that the licensing (or outlawing) of concealed carry was a valid government power.
The implication is that the state has NO legitimate power to limit open carry.
I wonder if that will be the ultimate outcome--supposing we haven't lost a conservative Justice by then.
MagnumDweeb
Member
So it looks like Gura will be the next big gun saint. We'll have our Browning, Colt, Smith and Wesson(Don't remember the different names but they pushed the envelop once upon a time) and soon Gura.
God made man, Colt made them equal.
Smith and Wesson created the self-contained cartridges and N-frame.
Browning, it's a long list.
Gura, got us our rights back(minus new machineguns).
God made man, Colt made them equal.
Smith and Wesson created the self-contained cartridges and N-frame.
Browning, it's a long list.
Gura, got us our rights back(minus new machineguns).
gbw
Member
The anti’s don’t believe that exactly. They believe guns facilitate crime, and so therefore guns encourage crime, and that crimes with guns are more dangerous.
We are foolish to deny the obvious, that they have a point. But since many of us do deny it, consider a simple example:
Case1: You’re standing with a little old lady. She demands your money. You laugh and maybe she goes to jail.
Case 2: She demands your money and sticks her snub under your nose. You do not laugh and she gets the money and maybe you or some innocent gets shot and killed.
The only difference? In C2 a successful crime occurred and the chance of a dead victim or innocent child increased by orders of magnitude. Why? She had a gun.
Follow: A may issue law explicitly includes the right to deny a gun permit. For every denial fewer guns carried. Therefore fewer chances of Case 2 above occurring. Therefore the government interest in may-issue (i.e. denial).
That’s their logic, to put it in the nutshell in which it belongs.
The huge hole in their logic, the one we love so much, is that it assumes a criminal will not carry because it’s against the law. But even that’s not a complete fallacy - sometimes a criminal won’t carry if it’s illegal, won’t risk arrest when they don’t see a need to be armed. Anti’s argue that any reduction is better than nothing.
However we structure our position, we need to include the purely inescapable facts that freedoms have real costs: that the more guns there are, the fewer the restrictions on guns, and the more guns will be misused.
And, rightly or wrongly, we'd better realize that people fear gun misuse more than most other forms of crime or mischief. I think this is mainly because they don't see a need for guns. And they know how many closet-cretins there are among us.
Over time, as more people become less willing to pay those costs, and as the anti's hammer their case that guns are unnecessary to civilized society, I fear we will lose. Too many of the arguments and positions I see on our side are lame and weak and don't help.
Standing Wolf
Member in memoriam
Funny or sickening. Lots of people just don't get the idea of liberty for all.
CoRoMo
Member
I agree with the judge. They completely sold us out in that regard.
gbw the vast majority of violent crime is committed by healthy young men, not little old ladies as in your example.
Healthy young men that typically would already have the advantage over many chosen victims. Toss in a readily obtainable non-gun weapon and they really have the advantage over the portion of the population that is not healthy men.
These non-gun weapons have no hope of ever being effectively restricted to a point they won't be possessed by anyone that wants one at any time, as they consist of numerous things which are found in the majority of homes and used for various tasks. Numerous tools, kitchen knives, sporting equipment (very likely to be available to young healthy men), etc
A strong man can wield something like a blunt object with far greater effectiveness than your typical women, elderly, physically disabled, etc
So even if both sides have a blunt object, the young attacker will typically be more effective, with greater strength and dexterity, able to more readily inflict damage than well over half of the population if they were similarly armed.
A gun on the other hand results in something closer to equality.
Everyone with a gun may not be perfect, but if a society really believes in equality it would seem unfair to declare that healthy men shall be guaranteed by law to prevail in most altercations. Which is the case when guns are not present due to legal restriction. (A legal restriction the criminal is more likely to violate than their victim, and so be more inclined due to the law to be at yet an even greater advantage, being stronger, healthier, and armed with a gun.)
Healthy young men that typically would already have the advantage over many chosen victims. Toss in a readily obtainable non-gun weapon and they really have the advantage over the portion of the population that is not healthy men.
These non-gun weapons have no hope of ever being effectively restricted to a point they won't be possessed by anyone that wants one at any time, as they consist of numerous things which are found in the majority of homes and used for various tasks. Numerous tools, kitchen knives, sporting equipment (very likely to be available to young healthy men), etc
A strong man can wield something like a blunt object with far greater effectiveness than your typical women, elderly, physically disabled, etc
So even if both sides have a blunt object, the young attacker will typically be more effective, with greater strength and dexterity, able to more readily inflict damage than well over half of the population if they were similarly armed.
A gun on the other hand results in something closer to equality.
Everyone with a gun may not be perfect, but if a society really believes in equality it would seem unfair to declare that healthy men shall be guaranteed by law to prevail in most altercations. Which is the case when guns are not present due to legal restriction. (A legal restriction the criminal is more likely to violate than their victim, and so be more inclined due to the law to be at yet an even greater advantage, being stronger, healthier, and armed with a gun.)
Last edited:
gbw,
There are 2 things you left out of your examples.
1) The lady who wants to rob someone at gun point will not be hindered by concealed carry laws. She will easily acquire a firearm.
2) In your Case 2, if the law is shall-issue, and not may-issue, when that lady points a gun at me, I can point one back. In a may-issue jurisdiction, only criminals are carrying.
You will have a hard time convincing me (unless you offer empirical evidence) that a criminal willing to shoot someone dead will be hindered/deterred/discouraged from acquiring a gun and carrying it illegally by some concealed carry law. If they are willing to ignore the murder ban, I'd venture to guess they don't care so much about the concealed carry ban either.
There are 2 things you left out of your examples.
1) The lady who wants to rob someone at gun point will not be hindered by concealed carry laws. She will easily acquire a firearm.
2) In your Case 2, if the law is shall-issue, and not may-issue, when that lady points a gun at me, I can point one back. In a may-issue jurisdiction, only criminals are carrying.
You will have a hard time convincing me (unless you offer empirical evidence) that a criminal willing to shoot someone dead will be hindered/deterred/discouraged from acquiring a gun and carrying it illegally by some concealed carry law. If they are willing to ignore the murder ban, I'd venture to guess they don't care so much about the concealed carry ban either.
Justin
Moderator Emeritus
So we should disarm all little old ladies (and everyone else) on the off chance that one of them intends to commit a crime, but only after she's gone to the trouble of getting a background check and filing paperwork with the state to legally carry a handgun.
Statistics have been showing for quite some time now that rates of violent crime have been trending down while rates of gun ownership and the numbers of people with concealed carry permits have been going up. Furthermore, those places with the strictest gun control laws tend to have higher rates of violent crime. While I won't make the total leap to more guns = less crime, it's pretty clear that there are many other factors that relate to the amount of violent crime in a given location in a much more significant way than gun availability.
chuck pullen
Member
I still find it hard to believe that my home, Alabama, a very conservative state, is still "may issue."
Yeah, I don't follow either GBW. England's homicide rate went up immediately following their handgun ban. Heck, their homicides by shooting went up following the ban. (http://webarchive.nationalarchives....rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/hosb0207.pdf specifically pages 14 & 16, although the whole thing is interesting). Assuming that more guns or more people carrying guns causes crime to go up, why in God's name would homicides and homicides by shooting go up after a ban? 
Maybe criminals don't follow gun laws?
Check out http://library.npia.police.uk/docs/hors/hors298.pdf sometime, a 2006 British study on the market in illegal firearms inside their country. The executive summary dryly notes than overall firearm crime has gone up since their handgun ban, and that a 'criminal gun culture' seems to have sprung up. IMHO that 'criminal gun culture' was always there, they were just too busy attacking the legitimate gun culture to notice.
Inside our own country Chicago and D.C. stood for decades as shining examples of the effectiveness of handgun bans. The anti-gun crowd would of course argue that those areas didn't have secure borders and that criminals just brought guns in from states with weaker gun laws. Problem is our national border isn't exactly secure either. The War on Drugs has been illustrating that for decades. Then there's the aforementioned England, experimenting with a national handgun ban.
Off the top of my head, I'd have to say that almost every gun control scheme has been tried in our own country at one point or another at one place or another. The CDC did a study a few years back on whether any of those schemes were found to do much at all:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm
You also have to wonder why the anti-gun groups never seem to talk about the homicide rates in states like CA/cites like D.C. with strict gun control laws vs the homicide rates in states like, say Vermont, or cities like Seattle WA with 'weak' gun laws. The Brady Campaign does put out a yearly 'report card' with their rating of the states' gun laws and they do talk about 'gun deaths' sometimes (which include everything from justifiable homicides by the police to suicides, suicides making up the majority) ... but they never seem to talk about homicide rates. Maybe it's because the numbers don't look so good for them ...
Then there's this weirdness, gun sales seem to be going up (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/reports/total-nics-checks) while homicides and homicides by firearm have both been going down (http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_08.html)
Maybe criminals don't follow gun laws?
Check out http://library.npia.police.uk/docs/hors/hors298.pdf sometime, a 2006 British study on the market in illegal firearms inside their country. The executive summary dryly notes than overall firearm crime has gone up since their handgun ban, and that a 'criminal gun culture' seems to have sprung up. IMHO that 'criminal gun culture' was always there, they were just too busy attacking the legitimate gun culture to notice.
Inside our own country Chicago and D.C. stood for decades as shining examples of the effectiveness of handgun bans. The anti-gun crowd would of course argue that those areas didn't have secure borders and that criminals just brought guns in from states with weaker gun laws. Problem is our national border isn't exactly secure either. The War on Drugs has been illustrating that for decades. Then there's the aforementioned England, experimenting with a national handgun ban.
Off the top of my head, I'd have to say that almost every gun control scheme has been tried in our own country at one point or another at one place or another. The CDC did a study a few years back on whether any of those schemes were found to do much at all:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm
You also have to wonder why the anti-gun groups never seem to talk about the homicide rates in states like CA/cites like D.C. with strict gun control laws vs the homicide rates in states like, say Vermont, or cities like Seattle WA with 'weak' gun laws. The Brady Campaign does put out a yearly 'report card' with their rating of the states' gun laws and they do talk about 'gun deaths' sometimes (which include everything from justifiable homicides by the police to suicides, suicides making up the majority) ... but they never seem to talk about homicide rates. Maybe it's because the numbers don't look so good for them ...
Then there's this weirdness, gun sales seem to be going up (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/reports/total-nics-checks) while homicides and homicides by firearm have both been going down (http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_08.html)
Last edited:
ChileRelleno
Member
Thankfully, for all intents and purposes, the vast majority of Alabama Sheriffs are 'Shall Issue' in their approval of CCW permits.Chuck Pullen said:
There are a very few AL Sheriffs who deny permits of those who meet the State/Federal qualifications, if you qualify, you get your permit.
Those few who play games do not usually last long come the next Election.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
