Twenty state attys, several others file briefs supporting saf appeal - Page 2

Twenty state attys, several others file briefs supporting saf appeal

This is a discussion on Twenty state attys, several others file briefs supporting saf appeal within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Our own Idiot Tom Miller, is of course, not on the list... Miller is the AG in Iowa that, although the shall issue law gives ...

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 29 of 29
Like Tree19Likes

Thread: Twenty state attys, several others file briefs supporting saf appeal

  1. #16
    VIP Member Array oakchas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    7,554
    Our own Idiot Tom Miller, is of course, not on the list...

    Miller is the AG in Iowa that, although the shall issue law gives state preemption to restricted places, told county and municipal leaders in his official opinion they could indeed bar carry in non prohibited places... city county parks, public buildings and the like...
    Rats!
    It could be worse!
    I suppose


  2. #17
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,880
    Quote Originally Posted by mrreynolds View Post
    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.
    Please all keep in mind that this is a case which is several years old and has nothing to do with NY's new restrictions; it is about NY's restrictive "may issue for good cause" regulations.

    And please note that if USSC does not "grant Cert," the game is over for shall issue as other states will be
    emboldened to go back to may issue. I have a comment at the end of some legal gobbly **** for the interested
    immediately below.

    Summary of the Case-- "Justia.com Opinion Summary: Plaintiffs appealed from the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants. Plaintiff sought declaratory and injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C. 1983, barring New York State handgun licensing officials from requiring that applicants prove "proper cause" to obtain licenses to carry handguns for self-defense pursuant to New York Penal Law section 400.00(2)(f). They argued that application for section 400.00(2)(f) violated the Second and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. Because the proper cause requirement was substantially related to New York's compelling interests in public safety and crime prevention, the court affirmed the judgment." Kachalsky v. Cacace :: Second Circuit :: US Courts of Appeals Cases :: US Federal Case Law :: US Case Law :: US Law :: Justia

    OK-- Here for everyone's edification (whatever that means are some excerpts)

    817 F.Supp.2d 235 (2011)
    Alan KACHALSKY, Christina Nikolov, Eric Detmer, Johnnie Nance, Anna Marcucci-Nance, and Second Amendment Foundation, Inc., Plaintiffs,
    v.
    Susan CACACE, Jeffrey A. Cohen, Albert Lorenzo, Robert K. Holdman, and County of Westchester, Defendants.
    No. 10-CV-5413 (CS).

    United States District Court, S.D. New York.
    September 2, 2011.

    kachalsky v. cacace - Google Scholar



    KACHALSKY v. COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER

    Alan KACHALSKY, Christina Nikolov, Johnnie Nance, Anna Marcucci–Nance, Eric Detmer, Second Amendment Foundation, Inc., Plaintiffs–Appellants–Cross–Appellees, v. COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER, Defendant–Appellee–Cross–Appellant, Susan Cacace, Jeffrey A. Cohen, Albert Lorenzor, Robert K. Holdman, Defendants–Appellees.

    Docket Nos. 11–3642 (Lead), 11–3962(XAP).

    Decision---"In view of our determination that New York's proper cause requirement is constitutional under the Second Amendment as applied to Plaintiffs, we also reject their facial overbreadth challenge.25 Overbreadth challenges are generally limited to the First Amendment context. United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 745, 107 S.Ct. 2095, 95 L.Ed.2d 697 (1987). But even if we assume that overbreadth analysis may apply to Second Amendment cases, it is well settled “that a person to whom a statute may constitutionally be applied will not be heard to challenge that statute on the ground that it may conceivably be applied unconstitutionally to others, in other situations not before the Court.” Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 610, 93 S.Ct. 2908, 37 L.Ed.2d 830 (1973). This principle “reflect[s] the conviction that under our constitutional system courts are not roving commissions assigned to pass judgment on the validity of the Nation's laws.” Id. at 610–11; see also Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124, 167–68, 127 S.Ct. 1610, 167 L.Ed.2d 480 (2007). Accordingly, we reject Plaintiffs' facial challenge.

    IV

    For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.

    Argued: Aug. 22, 2012. -- November 27, 2012

    Above is a difficult but worthwhile read.
    __________________________________________________ ______
    Comment---
    Before Heller I opined here that we were digging our own grave though I don't think I used that term.
    This case will IMO put the lid on the coffin if it should turn out the The Supremes don't take up the case
    and even if they do, don't overturn the Second Circuit.

    We all have a lot riding on it, but sadly, IMO, based only on the few lines of Dicta written by Scalia,
    the game is not going to turn our way.

    In a different thread I suggested that there were alternative approaches to parry the least desirable of
    legislative and judicially imposed constraints. To those in the industry, in the advocacy groups, in a position
    to actually do something, I urge you to start thinking and working on those YESTERDAY, because this case has the
    possibility of becoming checkmate for shall issue, and checkmate on all manner of additional regulations.

    We are (those who claim to represent gun owners) slowly digging our own legal and public opinion grave.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  3. #18
    Member Array MACC12's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    85
    I wish someone would do this to RI too. Although I don't live there, I do spend time alot of time in the state. You need to prove "just cause" to carry a firearm. I guess protecting myself isn't a good enough reason.
    “Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves.”
    ― Abraham Lincoln

  4. #19
    VIP Member
    Array oneshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    +42.893612,-082.710236 , Mi.
    Posts
    8,535
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Please all keep in mind that this is a case which is several years old and has nothing to do with NY's new restrictions; it is about NY's restrictive "may issue for good cause" regulations.

    And please note that if USSC does not "grant Cert," the game is over for shall issue as other states will be
    emboldened to go back to may issue. I have a comment at the end of some legal gobbly **** for the interested
    immediately below.

    Summary of the Case-- "Justia.com Opinion Summary: Plaintiffs appealed from the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants. Plaintiff sought declaratory and injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C. 1983, barring New York State handgun licensing officials from requiring that applicants prove "proper cause" to obtain licenses to carry handguns for self-defense pursuant to New York Penal Law section 400.00(2)(f). They argued that application for section 400.00(2)(f) violated the Second and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. Because the proper cause requirement was substantially related to New York's compelling interests in public safety and crime prevention, the court affirmed the judgment." Kachalsky v. Cacace :: Second Circuit :: US Courts of Appeals Cases :: US Federal Case Law :: US Case Law :: US Law :: Justia


    We are (those who claim to represent gun owners) slowly digging our own legal and public opinion grave.



    ^^In bold is the problem, in and of it self.^^^^^^^^^^^



    The wording "proper cause" to obtain licenses to carry handguns for self-defense" needs to be eliminated.
    It should be argued that you should be able to carry a concealed weapon for any reason you so desire, based on the CONSTITUTION.
    I would rather die with good men than hide with cowards
    If you want to make God laugh, tell him your plans.
    Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy."

  5. #20
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,880
    Quote Originally Posted by oneshot View Post
    ^^In bold is the problem, in and of it self.^^^^^^^^^^^



    The wording "proper cause" to obtain licenses to carry handguns for self-defense" needs to be eliminated.
    It should be argued that you should be able to carry a concealed weapon for any reason you so desire, based on the CONSTITUTION.
    I don't disagree with you. May issue needs to go. Proper cause needs to go. I've lived in shall issue and
    may issue, and won't issue states. My point wasn't about the necessity of shall issue. It was that the
    tactic being employed is a very high stakes tactic. We can win big, and we can lose BIGGER.

    If USSC refuses to take this case, or takes it and rules to uphold what the 2nd has done, other states
    which might be inclined to go back to may issue (for whatever reason) won't have anything stopping them.

    Gun ownership and gun use needs to be made fully respectable in the eyes of everyone else-- not us, we are
    there. It is the PR war that is being (or has been) lost, and therefore if this thing ends upside down at The
    Supremes we will be behind in the game needed to stop what we don't want.

    So, I'm not against the "righteousness" of what is being done, but I think given the fine print in Heller,
    that one line of commentary by Scalia, the game is over.

    More power to those who bang their heads against this wall.
    oneshot likes this.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  6. #21
    Senior Member Array KoriBustard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    632
    Joined.
    NRA Member
    GOAL Member
    Certified NRA RSO
    EDC: M&P 9c
    Favorite Firearm: 1968 SW .357 Revolver

  7. #22
    VIP Member Array cmdrdredd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Posts
    2,037
    Quote Originally Posted by OldVet View Post
    I'm surprised and pleased to see Florida's AG on that list as she can be a bit wishy-washy on the subject.
    Is she up for reelection in 2014? This could be a push to get relevant again after obamacare and immigration.

    Quote Originally Posted by chuckusaret View Post
    You would be wishy-washy too if you had to interact with the likes of Nelson and Hastings and others of that ilk on a daily basis.
    Nah, I'd just have to barf every 5 minutes.
    No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
    -Thomas Jefferson

    Laws are restrictive but sometimes necessary to maintain a civil society. Rights are nonrestrictive but are always necessary to maintain a free society.

  8. #23
    VIP Member Array Jetfuelrm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Cape Coral Florida
    Posts
    2,167
    Quote Originally Posted by OldVet View Post
    I'm surprised and pleased to see Florida's AG on that list as she can be a bit wishy-washy on the subject.
    I was surprised as well. I'm hoping our Governor will do more.
    "As a strong supporter of our 2nd Amendment rights, I believe tougher enforcement of our nation's existing gun laws must be done before any more laws are enacted and put on the books."
    Jeff Miller

  9. #24
    VIP Member Array BugDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Gulf Coast of Florida
    Posts
    9,438
    So when is SAF going to file a suit in connection with the newly instituted bans and magazine limits put in place by NY and other states/localities?
    Know Guns, Know Safety, Know Peace.
    No Guns, No Safety, No Peace.


    Guns are like sex and air...its no big deal until YOU can't get any.

  10. #25
    Senior Member Array mrreynolds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    620
    Quote Originally Posted by BugDude View Post
    So when is SAF going to file a suit in connection with the newly instituted bans and magazine limits put in place by NY and other states/localities?
    NYSRPA, in co-operation with the NRA, are having the Cuomo law reviewed by a highly qualified legal team. We ask that no other 3rd party legal action be taken without prior consultation. We realize that this law impacts a large number of people, but a proper legal review will take some time. Involved in the lawsuit will be two of the nations best 2nd Amendment attorneys. This is a very important proceeding and must be handled properly with the best lawyers. We will not win without support from gun owners. You can help either by joining/renewing your membership or making a online donation.

    Please do not call or e-mail the office or directors asking for more information. Any announcements on this issue will be published here on our website. Thank you for your understanding.

    January 29, 2013 UPDATE: A Notice of Claim has been filed.

  11. #26
    VIP Member Array BugDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Gulf Coast of Florida
    Posts
    9,438
    Quote Originally Posted by mrreynolds View Post
    NYSRPA, in co-operation with the NRA, are having the Cuomo law reviewed by a highly qualified legal team. We ask that no other 3rd party legal action be taken without prior consultation. We realize that this law impacts a large number of people, but a proper legal review will take some time. Involved in the lawsuit will be two of the nations best 2nd Amendment attorneys. This is a very important proceeding and must be handled properly with the best lawyers. We will not win without support from gun owners. You can help either by joining/renewing your membership or making a online donation.

    Please do not call or e-mail the office or directors asking for more information. Any announcements on this issue will be published here on our website. Thank you for your understanding.

    January 29, 2013 UPDATE: A Notice of Claim has been filed.
    Thanks for the update!!! I'm glad to know there is a coordinated legal effort to attack this unconstitutional infringement. This is huge because you see the list of other states following suit.
    Know Guns, Know Safety, Know Peace.
    No Guns, No Safety, No Peace.


    Guns are like sex and air...its no big deal until YOU can't get any.

  12. #27
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,880
    Quote Originally Posted by mrreynolds View Post
    NYSRPA, in co-operation with the NRA, are having the Cuomo law reviewed by a highly qualified legal team. We ask that no other 3rd party legal action be taken without prior consultation. We realize that this law impacts a large number of people, but a proper legal review will take some time. Involved in the lawsuit will be two of the nations best 2nd Amendment attorneys. This is a very important proceeding and must be handled properly with the best lawyers. We will not win without support from gun owners. You can help either by joining/renewing your membership or making a online donation.

    Please do not call or e-mail the office or directors asking for more information. Any announcements on this issue will be published here on our website. Thank you for your understanding.

    January 29, 2013 UPDATE: A Notice of Claim has been filed.
    McReynolds, question for you. Haven't there been problems with similar suits simply because the courts
    felt the plaintiff lacked standing, that there needed to be a plaintiff who was personally harmed?

    I don't know if you are involved in the legal issues, or just passing info along, but how would you convince
    me--- were I the judge (IANAL) that you have standing to bring this suit?
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  13. #28
    VIP Member Array cmdrdredd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Posts
    2,037

    Re: Twenty state attys, several others file briefs supporting saf appeal

    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    McReynolds, question for you. Haven't there been problems with similar suits simply because the courts
    felt the plaintiff lacked standing, that there needed to be a plaintiff who was personally harmed?

    I don't know if you are involved in the legal issues, or just passing info along, but how would you convince
    me--- were I the judge (IANAL) that you have standing to bring this suit?
    I'm sure they have someone on board that has been affected by this.

    Sent via telepathy on a Galaxy S3
    No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
    -Thomas Jefferson

    Laws are restrictive but sometimes necessary to maintain a civil society. Rights are nonrestrictive but are always necessary to maintain a free society.

  14. #29
    VIP Member Array smolck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    3,401
    Heck yea! I know my atty general and he is VERY PRO GUN! ROLL TIDE!
    As Benjamin Franklin left the hall in Philadelphia, he was asked, “What kind of government have you given us, Dr. Franklin?” He replied: “A republic, if you can keep it.”

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

amicus briefs filed in kachalsky

,

cuccinelli amicus brief second amendment

,

kachalsky v cacace

,

kachalsky v cacace impact

,

kachalsky v. cacace

,

texas ag's amicus brief in kachalsky

Click on a term to search for related topics.