Target: New York
Alan Gura and the Second Amendment Foundation have challenged New York's "good cause" requirement for a carry license. As usual, good targeting. It moves from "keep" to "carry," and aims at a system that requires exercise of a constitutional right to be authorized by permit, on the vague basis of "good cause." Which in this case the licensing authority translates into "good cause that is in some way exceptional, when compared to the good cause that is true of the population in general," or "extraordinarily good cause."
Hat tip to reader Nick L. ...
UPDATE: Only Guns and Money notes that one plaintiff earlier challenged the system in NY State courts, got to its highest court, which dismissed the case on its own motion for lack of a substantial constitutional question. The dissenting judge pointed out that the Supreme Court had already accepted McDonald v. Chicago, suggesting there might just be a substantial constitutional question here...
Or "politically hooked up" which is what you gotta be to get anything in some of these urban areas.
Posted by: Letalis Maximus, Esq. at July 15, 2010 06:22 PM
California has the same "good cause" language but probably has deeper pockets (sort of, given its budget problems). As much as I would have liked to see California have to fight this, New York makes more sense. And obviously California is a mixed bag since discretion is up to the sheriff. From "ain't gonna happen in San Francisco to the sheriff of Mendocino County saying "your good cause is that I can't protect you".
Posted by: AlanR - GunRightsAlert.com at July 15, 2010 06:48 PM
In commiefornia we have like I like to call the "Sean Penn may carry" CCW policy; as in notable hothead and violent nutball Sean Penn can get a license to carry a concealed weapon but the average good citizen can not.
Posted by: Brad at July 15, 2010 07:18 PM
Hot diggety. Though, NY isn't in the same district as NY (as I just found out).
I gotta wonder how much money Westchester County is willing to put into this thing (and if they can go to the state and beg for money, too). A couple of the Chi-town suburbs folded tents on their gun bans rather than fight them
Posted by: Ian Argent at July 15, 2010 08:13 PM
It's The Alan Gura Show - Coming to a town near you!
Posted by: Greg in Allston at July 15, 2010 08:31 PM
I'm pretty sure than NY is in the same district as NY
Posted by: N at July 15, 2010 08:46 PM
Does anyone have a link to a dedicated web page for either of Mr. Gura's (Peace be upon Him) new cases?
Posted by: Flighterdoc at July 15, 2010 08:52 PM
California "may issue" carry has already been challenged during the Nordyke Incorporation window. The case restarts late August: http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Sykes_v._McGinness
Posted by: Gene Hoffman at July 15, 2010 11:54 PM
I bet one reason NY was picked is that to even own a handgun you must have a CCW license, but the issuing authority can limit that license with restrictions such as home-only, home-and-business, target-shooting and unrestricted (a full CCW valid anywhere in the state except NYC). The restrictions are not criminally enforceable, but if your issuing authority hears about you carrying outside of your restrictions your permit will be pulled and you'll have to sell your handguns.
Posted by: Kharn at July 16, 2010 06:11 AM
Carefully pick your targets, don't just scatter-gun the issue. Follow Gura's lead, he's done well so far and seems to have his own plan.
Posted by: tarpon at July 16, 2010 07:32 AM
It use to be fairly easy to have a handgun in NY state above Westchester. NYC has been crazy since the Sullivan Act at least. My understanding is that NYC pushed its passage for it's self mainly. When I lived in NYC you either were rich and/or politically connected for get any sort of handgun permit while upstate may of my relatives had handguns. My understanding is as liberal NYC'ers moved upstate they brought their craziness with them and things changed. - Sigh!
The good old days, (50's, early 60's mostly) when you could walk around NYC with a Rifle in a case and the cops would spend time talking to you about their last hunting trip and wishing you good luck or admiring your small bore targets.
Posted by: Anonymous at July 16, 2010 07:45 AM
Sorry that was Rich on the previous post
Posted by: Rich at July 16, 2010 07:46 AM
This is what you get when you allow judges to add words to the 2nd Amendment. It is time for We the People to wake up and recognize 1) WE ARE IN CHARGE NOT THEM and 2) the supreme Court is NOT AUTHORIZED to interpret the Constitution. The subordinate cannot define the superior. GET THAT IN YOUR HEADS. It's all lies and BS and it has been all lies and BS since the first cases.
The text of the 2nd Amendment and the discussion during the writing of the 2nd amendment DO NOT point to the 2nd applying ONLY to the fed. That is a lie made up by an ignorant, tyrannical power-thief known as John Marshall. Rather than being honest and maintaining his integrity, Marshall did everything in his power to usurp authority and to screw up the new Constitution. He was never satisfied with what came out of the Convention and so he did his best to destroy it early on.
As Rawle (1829) put it the BoR bound ALL governments. The lack of a limiting clause in the 2nd like that in the first combined with the lack of legitimate, constitutional police power in the fed demonstrate that the primary control exerted by the BoR was on ALL governments. ONLY the 1st was restricted to the fed. But then one must be able to read and comprehend English to understand which I have not seen in 17+ years of study on Constitutional law.
When We the People, who are supposed to be in charge, allow a bunch of hooligans to control things, this kind of crap is what we get.
Latter law supersedes prior law so the 2nd completely circumscribes all parts of the earlier Constitution that conflict with the straightforward text of the amendment. The fact that the 2nd does not contain any restrictive clause relative to its applicability toward government combined with the supremacy clause of the Constitution make the 2nd fully applicable to all governments, regardless of the old and new decisions of the SC, which BTW DOES NOT have authority to interpret the Constitution. The SC is subordinate to the Constitution. You are subordinate to your boss. Next time you go in to work why don't you tell your boss what his/er job is? That is what the SC is doing when it interprets the Constitution, telling their boss what its job is. ONLY We the People are superior to the Constitution.
Too many power hungry people who have no honor or integrity are either elected or appointed. And those whom we elect do not do their jobs. They do not hold the collective feet of the appointees to the fire. Any time a judge decides against society that violates the "good behaviour" (sic) clause and that judge can be removed. The judges work FOR US, SERVE US. We DO NOT serve them. But We the People must stand up. We must learn the Constitution. And We must hold our elected servants' feet to the fire.
If we do not we will continue to have this battle forever.
Posted by: fwb at July 16, 2010 09:23 AM
I hope NY folds and Gura comes to CA. The sheriff of Sacramento county is threatening to relax his standards and issue more permits due to staff cuts, so someone is recognizing police are rarely there, even if there are "enough" of them.
Posted by: Harry Schell at July 16, 2010 11:16 AM
Alan indeed has - for Sacto CCW, Alan has worked with The Calguns Foundation and SAF for a Sacto CCW lawsuit - Sykes v. McGinisss. We filed last year when we had a first bout of incorporation (until Nordyke went en banc)
See www.calgunsfoundation.org and look for info on the Sykes case.
Aside from the handwaving politics it does appear this case may be driving improvments...
Vice Chair, The Calguns Foundation
Posted by: Bill Wiese at July 16, 2010 12:29 PM
This is not a "slam dunk" case. The Heller decision included this section: "[l]ike most rights, the Second Amendment is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." The 2nd circuit has not been very friendly to 2nd Amendment cases in the past and who, with Sonia Sotomayor agreeing in the decision before she was appointed to the Supreme Court, refused to include discussion of the 2nd Amendment decision in the Heller case in a recent 2nd Amendment case that the plaintiff lost.
Posted by: OCShooters.com at July 16, 2010 07:01 PM
It might not be a "slam dunk" for a CCW permit, but it will be a slam dunk for some type of carry, whether it's open carry or concealed.
Gura and other have made the point that after McDonald states an localities may chose to prohibit concealed carry or open carry, but not both.
I highly doubt Bloomberg and gang will want open carry to be the only legal option in NYC, but if that's what I'm forced to do then I'll take it.
Posted by: Nick L. at July 16, 2010 10:04 PM
No cases are slam dunks in this area. But as long as the Supremes say the 2A gives an individual right to "bear" arms for personal defense, that HAS to mean more than just inside your own house.
Of course the Heller court was going to say the right was not completely unlimited as to bearing arms, because there was no "bearing" issue before them in the case. But obviously the issue would present itself, and the only thing they could have said at the time (given the way they decide cases) was that there would be some limits.
But as long as there are 5 Justices who are not rabidly anti-gun we SHOULD see some reasonably sensible analysis of the "bearing" issue once the lower courts have decided some cases.
Posted by: skeptic5 at July 17, 2010 06:36 AM
I just re-read the complaint this afternoon. He argues in his statement of facts that the Second Amendment is incorporated by the 14th Amendment.
In Count II of the complaint, Gura says the New York law requirement to demonstrate cause violates the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
Is he trying to expand the basis for incorporation?
Posted by: John Richardson at July 18, 2010 03:52 PM
John, I read it also. IANALNDIPOOTV, but, it makes sense logically to bring in the equal protection clause to drive states in a particular legal direction. Specifically, the case is now, that "some animals are more equal than others" if I can steal a phrase. In practice, the politically connected get privileges that the rest of us don't. Call it corruption if you will - I have direct evidence of that in my county - i.e. buying CCW with contributions. Before incorporation, the state could technically have retreated to a "no-issue" condition. Now, not so much. In fact, it's not an option and the anti's don't really know it yet. We have barely scratched the surface of where this litigation needs to go. Once "bear" gets in the table, then the "sensitive sites" issue gets very serious.
Posted by: RKV at July 18, 2010 04:40 PM