[.357MagNYC]

Oral arguments in the Westchester County concealed carry case, Kachalsky v. Cacace, are scheduled for next Wednesday, August 22, in the afternoon session. I plan on going, and I'll report back on how it goes. It'll be great to see a master like Alan Gura at work, and to be a part of history, as the case will probably be the next big Supreme Court ruling on the Second Amendment.

However, after seeing the panel, I have to admit I'm pessimistic. It's Katzmann, Wesley, and Lynch. Wesley is a GWB appointee who was a Republican in the New York State Assembly. But Katzmann was a Clinton appointee, and Lynch was appointed to the SDNY by Clinton and to the Second Circuit by Obama of all people. So the best we can probably hope for is 2-1, with a strong dissent from Wesley.

Seriously, folks, as I keep saying, this is why this November is so important. If Obama wins, we can count on the courts around the country being packed with anti-gun judges.

Check out the link for more info. Kachalsky is Panel B, week of 8/20. Oral arguments will take place in the ceremonial courtroom of the SDNY at 500 Pearl Street in Manhattan, on the 9th floor accessible through the Worth Street entrance.

Weekly Calendar

 

[DirgeNYS]

Even if we lose this one, doesn't that mean we can go straight to the SCOTUS? And if so, doesn't that mean we automatically win because of the SCOTUS rulings on Heller v. DC and McDonald v. Chicago?

 

[sdb3023]

.357 I look forward to your AAR.

 

[.357MagNYC]

Even if we lose this one, doesn't that mean we can go straight to the SCOTUS? And if so, doesn't that mean we automatically win because of the SCOTUS rulings on Heller v. DC and McDonald v. Chicago?

Yes, the next step after the Second Circuit is the SCOTUS. But the Supreme Court has to agree to hear the case; otherwise, the Second Circuit's ruling will stand. (Personally, though, I think the Court will be eager to rule on the applicability of the Second Amendment outside the home.)

Heller and McDonald don't necessarily guarantee us a win here. Thus far, lower courts in NY, NJ, and CA have been limiting Heller and McDonald to their narrowest holding--that the 2A protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms in the home, that "arms" includes handguns, and that absolute bans on handgun possession in the home are unconstitutional.

Neither decision specifically says that the 2A protects a right to bear arms in public, or to carry a concealed handgun in public. In the first Kachalsky decision in the SDNY, Judge Seibel said that even if the 2A protects such a right, NY's proper cause requirement (effectively banning concealed carry downstate) was still constitutional.

So it could go either way. If Kachalsky makes it up to the current SCOTUS, it would basically come down to Kennedy, and I like our chances there.

But if Obama gets to replace one of the pro-gun justices with another anti-gun liberal before the case makes it all the way up, then we're screwed.

 

[DirgeNYS]

I'm not holding my breath for a ruling that would require NYS to hand out unrestricted CCW permits to everyone. However, if this case wins in the Appeals Court or the SCOTUS, at the very least would this strike down the "proper cause" requirement to own a handgun in the home and make NY a shall-issue state with restrictions on carrying concealed?

No matter how the anti's try to slice it, a permit to own a gun in your own home, which can be denied on a whim alone, is unconstitutional.

 

[CavalierKnight]

I might attend that court session as well.

The District of Maryland just struck down a law virtually identical to New York's law here at issue for violating the Second Amendment. Woollard v. Sheridan, No. L-10-2068, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28498 (D. Md. March 2, 2012) (striking down Md. Public Safety Code § 5-306(a)(5)(ii), requiring "good and substantial reason" to carry handgun). Almost immediately, another federal court found that the Second Amendment secures the right to carry a gun for self-defense outside the home. United States v. Weaver, No. 2:09-CR-00222, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29613 (S.D. W. Va. March 7, 2012).

In New York State, the police have no duty to provide police protection to any particular individual. The Courts in New York have held that "generally, a municipality may not be held liable for the failure to provide police protection because the duty to provide such protection is owed to the public at large, rather than to any particular individual" (Conde v. City of New York, 24 AD3d 595, 596 [2005]; see Cuffy v. City of New York, 69 NY2d 255, 260 [1987]).

As the Chair of the Public Safety Committee of Manhattan Community Board 12. I will be holding a Public Hearing in September 2012 on NYS Senate Bill S1427 & S1863 with an emphasis on self-defense education & firearm training for women.

Bill S1427 PURPOSE: This proposed constitutional amendment would provide within the New York State Constitution for a right of the people to keep and bear arms for traditionally recognized purposes

Bill S1863 PURPOSE: This legislation would remove a gun licensing officer's ability to deny or restrict the issuance of licenses to law abiding citizens who have successfully undergone the state's strict application process and appropriate New York State and Federal Bureau of Investigations fingerprint background check required under law. In addition, this bill will conform New York State law to current ATF requirements regarding background checks for firearms transfers.

September 12, 2012 at 6:30 PM at Isabella, 515 Audubon Avenue New York, NY 10040. If you live in New York State feel free to take a look at the information that I will be presenting as well as sign my on-line petition included at the link below. I hope that you will come out and support me as I support you. Fraternally.

Cavalier Knight Documents

 

[jmac00]

Is there anymore *canned* response from Assembly members than this. Do they all have the same play book.

First, let me thank you for taking the time to reach out and express your informed view to me. Please know that I am a proponent of the 2nd Amendment and respect the rights and privileges awarded by the Constitution of the United States to its citizens. Also, you should know that I support the responsible use of firearms, either for sport and recreation or for self-defense.

Did Ms Christensen call Chucky Schumers office and have them e-mail the "standard anti-gun response" to her, so she could forward it to you?

although your arguments are sound and have merit. I feel you are fighting an up hill battle that, even with additional help from powerful Pro-gun groups, you will loose simply because the powers that be will shrug their collective shoulders and say "that's nice, but no, we will continue to ban Law abiding citizens form owning firearms because we can"

I signed your petition. But being an old grumpy guy who is tired of the continued flow of BS from Albany and NYC, apathy has taken hold and Im seriously considering leaving the state.

 

[CavalierKnight]

Is there anymore *canned* response from Assembly members than this. Do they all have the same play book.

Did Ms Christensen call Chucky Schumers office and have them e-mail the "standard anti-gun response" to her, so she could forward it to you?

although your arguments are sound and have merit. I feel you are fighting an up hill battle that, even with additional help from powerful Pro-gun groups, you will loose simply because the powers that be will shrug their collective shoulders and say "that's nice, but no, we will continue to ban Law abiding citizens form owning firearms because we can"

I signed your petition. But being an old grumpy guy who is tired of the continued flow of BS from Albany and NYC, apathy has taken hold and Im seriously considering leaving the state.

What battle isn't uphill? The point being get in the fight and hit your opponent preferably in the face if they are bigger jump them, lol.

 

[jmac00]

What battle isn't uphill? The point being get in the fight and hit your opponent preferably in the face if they are bigger jump them, lol.

I signed your petition and Im members of the NRA, GOA and such. But I get the feeling the politicians simply don't give a rats ass what we as citizen think or want. There only concern is getting re-elected and with a population that has discovered entitlements, it will be virtually impossible to remove them.

I will be watching this case though and look forward to your reports.

 

[MDX]

even if it did rule in favor and NYS started handing out unrestricted to everyone. it will be a cold day in hell before it happens in NYC.

 

[CavalierKnight]

I signed your petition and Im members of the NRA, GOA and such. But I get the feeling the politicians simply don't give a rats ass what we as citizen think or want. There only concern is getting re-elected and with a population that has discovered entitlements, it will be virtually impossible to remove them.

I will be watching this case though and look forward to your reports.

I'm not totally disagreeing with your view I just don't like the fact that the so called Pro gun New Yorkers City or State have a defeated attitude. It's always the same thing stop complaining about it. The Anti's don't have pity parties they push their agenda rain, sleet or snow. I do the same. I will keep everyone updated. Stop riding the fence people.

 

[.357MagNYC]

even if it did rule in favor and NYS started handing out unrestricted to everyone. it will be a cold day in hell before it happens in NYC.

The law would have to apply to NYC as well. If proper cause is struck down, even NYC will have to start letting people carry--probably everyone who has a Premises License (less than 1% of the population) would eventually be able to carry.

But what will happen is firearms will be banned from parks and maybe even subways and buses, and just about all private businesses will prohibit firearms as well. So the right will be severely restricted in any case.

 

[MDX]

no, I guarantee it will not apply to NYC. Bloomberg will spend every last billion he has fighting it. NYC is only part of NYS when it wants to be. You have a good point though. if it does, it will be so restricted to the point it will be useless.

Its kind of like how we have sportsmans permits in rockland and all the local land around is state, county and town where firearms are prohibited.

 

[CavalierKnight]

It would change the Penal Law 400 in NYS which applies to NYC people seem to have this idea that a Judge cannot apply legal changes to the law in NYC.

 

[MDX]

Just how there is clear seperation for NYC on our permits now. There will be if this is passed. We all know there is no sepration between how they percieve legal gun owners and illegal gun owners. NYC leadership wants NO guns period. The will just percieve this as more guns on the street.

In NYC they will make the case that more legal gun ownership will allow more guns to be stolen and used in crimes. I am not saying its makes sense, but NYC can and will do what it wants regardless of what the state says.

 

[MDX]

I do think it will be harder for NYC to refuse upstate permits though if this passes. They just will not lighten up NYC residents from having carry permits.

 

[CavalierKnight]

Just how there is clear seperation for NYC on our permits now. There will be if this is passed. We all know there is no sepration between how they percieve legal gun owners and illegal gun owners. NYC leadership wants NO guns period. The will just percieve this as more guns on the street.

In NYC they will make the case that more legal gun ownership will allow more guns to be stolen and used in crimes. I am not saying its makes sense, but NYC can and will do what it wants regardless of what the state says.

Woollard v. Sheridan

The Court found that, under this standard, the Maryland law requiring "good and substantial reason" was overly broad; it did not specifically prohibit persons such as convicted criminals or the mentally ill, or even individuals "whose conduct indicates that he or she is potentially a danger to the public if entrusted with a handgun", as is found in the laws of other "may-issue" states.

The law is instead, as the Defendants admitted to in oral arguments, a rationing system intended solely to reduce the number of firearms carried, by restricting the "privilege" based on a demonstrated need beyond a general desire for self-defense. The Court found that while the Defendants articulated many compelling reasons why limiting firearms is in the interest of public safety, the "good reason" requirement did little to combat any of the situations offered; an applicant who has "good reason" to carry a firearm may still have it forcibly removed or stolen from their person, may still cause a negligent discharge or other accidental injury, and may still use the gun in a criminal manner.

In fact, Maryland's law, the decision states, "places firearms in the hands of those most likely to use them in a violent situation by limiting the issuance of permits to 'groups of individuals who are at greater risk than others of being the victims of crime.'

http://cavalierknight.com/pdf/gun.control/woollard.v.sheridan/woollard.v.sheridan.pdf

 

[Mike_in_MD]

Two things about MD, one, the 4th Circuit Court has given the State a temporary stay until October, 2012 and second, in MD you can buy and own handguns without a permit. The Wollard v Sheridan case was about the restrictions the state police put on permits and renewing a permit after the state police thinks a threat is no longer present. Yes, MD's permit system is messed up.

 

[chinacave]

Hey - Thanks to all that posted and for those that are taking the time to go and witness the further arguments in this case.

Watching with great interest and some hope in Westchester.......

 

[krucam]

Anyone familiar with the ca2.uscourts.gov website and know whether CA2 typically releases audio (MP3) of Oral Arguments?

Inquiring minds, and all....