Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.7
Site Design by Sekimori

« Katie Pavlich goes to Gunsite | Main | Two explosions at the Boston Marathon »

cert denied in Kachalsky

Posted by David Hardy · 15 April 2013 09:48 AM

Supreme Court denied cert. today in the case, which challenged New York's "may issue" permit requirement for all handgun carrying. A good case, but probably a bad time.

8 Comments | Leave a comment

Anonymous | April 15, 2013 9:56 AM | Reply

Why a bad time?

Anonymous | April 15, 2013 11:06 AM | Reply

No doubt the Professor means the timing related to the massive gun-control campaign using Sandy Hook as the centerpiece.
We here in Illinois are dismayed, as many of us fear the Machine will view the denial as license to run wild with their own gun-control schemes, especially as relates to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals striking down our prohibition of carry outside of our own property.
It would seem to be an invitation for the state, via Attorney General Madigan, to attempt to disallow the 7th's ruling via a Supreme Court ruling.

Jim March | April 15, 2013 12:15 PM | Reply

>>It would seem to be an invitation for the state, via Attorney General Madigan, to attempt to disallow the 7th's ruling via a Supreme Court ruling.

Let's hope she goes there. Moore is the cleanest carry case we have, because it's about a right to carry "at all" - a ban on both concealed and open carry was struck and the 7th Circuit said "there has to be a way to carry".

We'd love to see the US Supremes rule on that.

If Madigan doesn't appeal, there's a significant chance IL "goes Vermont" as there's been little progress on a shall-issue bill and may-issue is politically impossible - too many gunnie legicritters, more than enough to say "no" to any bad carry bill.

WPZ | April 15, 2013 2:33 PM | Reply

Jim, with all due respect, I have to disagree about having Moore wind up at the Supreme Court.
I simply have no confidence that at least five of the justices then sitting will read the law and apply it as written.
Perhaps in my older age I've become cynical, or maybe just having been disappointed too many times, but it's no slam dunk from my point of view.
Folks spending too much time in the elite world of high politics so often seem to see themselves as becoming a power unto themselves, and able to see beyond the restrictions of the law as written.
All of which is to say, heaven only knows what would really come out the other end of the sausage maker if Moore was tossed in.
Meanwhile, I do have faith in the Machine to get a "carry" law passed in the nick of time.
There's no reason for Madigan to hurry. The passage of time works in his favor, not ours.
We're the ones with battle fatigue; the Machine people are simply sitting back and enjoying watching us work.
There are so many ways for Madigan et al to make things go their way I'm almost intrigued to see what the final outcome is.
Meanwhile, I'm not exactly concerned about breaking in any new carry holsters, not as long as I reside in this God-forsaken place.

Nor'Easter | April 15, 2013 4:56 PM | Reply

Hard to think about this while this Boston thing is going on, God be with them all.
Anyway, I thought that this case – with all it’s merits – was putting the cart before the horse. The case would have been better if it challenged the NY Sullivan Law on the basis of not CCW but the fact that NO handgun can be possessed without an “unduly burdensome process” under “arbitrary and capacious” rules – even in the home. This would have been in line with McDonald and I think would have won. Go on to CCW after that. What do you think?
In the meantime, the grabbers are rejoicing and I’m bummed out.

Mman | April 15, 2013 5:28 PM | Reply

Every justice who didn't vote for certiorari violated their oath of office by not upholding the constitution. It is as simple as that.

Richard | April 15, 2013 8:31 PM | Reply

John Roberts playing politics again?

Rich | April 16, 2013 8:14 AM | Reply

MMan: You forgot they took an oath to their party leaders which supersedes any oath of office - I mean really, what are you thinking?

Leave a comment