Three 2nd Amendment Court Cases to Keep an Eye on

[RicInOR]

This is on Reason and they are having a fund drive - you can click past the ad.

The story:
The Three Most Important Ongoing Second Amendment Cases - Reason.com


The Cases:
<broken link removed>

http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/121150p.pdf

NYSRPA v. NYC Title 38

Read More

 

[sailorfej]

Frankly I think Nichols v Harris ( Status of California Open Carry Lawsuit « California Right To Carry ) is way more important than the ones identified by Reason, and it is perfect followup to Heller in that Heller established the individual right to possess (i.e. the "keep" part of the 2A) and Nichols will, if successful, establish the right to carry (i.e. the "bear" part of the 2A). Unfortunately this is an open carry case and because of that both the SAF and NRA have not only not supported it, but have actually hindered the case in arguments in an attempt to gain favorable positioning for their own current concealed carry cases in the 9th Circuit region.

 

[deen_ad]

Unfortunately this is an open carry case and because of that both the SAF and NRA have not only not supported it, but have actually hindered the case in arguments in an attempt to gain favorable positioning for their own current concealed carry cases in the 9th Circuit region.

And you got this "information" from what source?


Deen
NRA Life Member, Benefactor Level
"Defender of Freedom" award
NRA Recruiter
Second Amendment Foundation Member
Washington Arms Collectors Member
Arms Collectors of SW Washington Member

"Having a gun is like a parachute, if you need one and don't have it you may never need it again"

 

[sailorfej]

And you got this "information" from what source?

If you follow the link I provided, under the September updates, he describes where CRPA/NRA lawyers requested his appeal be stayed, pending appeal of their concealed carry suits, in McKay v Hutchens, the NRA/CRPA's lawyers argued that Californian can ban open carry, but then must allow concealed carry. Audio of arguments: Listen to recording for Dorothy McKay, et al v. Sheriff Sandra Hutchens, et al, No. 12-57049

Don't get me wrong, I am a current member of and regularly donate to both the NRA and SAF (also OFF and GOA), but that certainly doesn't mean I believe they always make the right call. While there have been occasions where some NRA regional chapters have supported open carry legislation and/or lawsuits, it is also true that in numerous cases where they felt it would improve the chances of succeeding with "shall issue" CC legislation and/or lawsuits, they are more than willing to throw open carry under the bus.

I think the NRA is like any other large organization there are sub groups within it that have different priorities and agendas, I do think the NRA has been shifting to being more pro open carry than in the past, but it still has a long way to go. In particular I can't understand why they have never got behind Nichols v Harris, it is almost certain that given its current make up, the 9th circuit will go against Nichols, which makes it a very good candidate for SCOTUS, and it would clearly establish that the base act of bearing a firearm outside the home is protected.

 

[deen_ad]

Knowing the NRA (Life Member, Benefactor level) I do know that they carefully pick and choose what they support. Sometimes it's just a matter of the suit not being narrow enough in focus (like the Heller case) or it could hurt already ongoing litigation.

And yes, I don't always agree with all that the NRA does. I also wish some groups that are supposed to be for the 2nd amendment would quit "infighting and denigrating the NRA. That is a good tactic, honed to perfection by the Oblammer administration.

Deen
NRA Life Member, Benefactor Level
"Defender of Freedom" award
NRA Recruiter
Second Amendment Foundation Member
Washington Arms Collectors Member
Arms Collectors of SW Washington Member

"Having a gun is like a parachute, if you need one and don't have it you may never need it again"

 

[U201491]

Knowing the NRA (Life Member, Benefactor level) I do know that they carefully pick and choose what they support. Sometimes it's just a matter of the suit not being narrow enough in focus (like the Heller case) or it could hurt already ongoing litigation.

And yes, I don't always agree with all that the NRA does. I also wish some groups that are supposed to be for the 2nd amendment would quit "infighting and denigrating the NRA. That is a good tactic, honed to perfection by the Oblammer administration.

Deen
NRA Life Member, Benefactor Level
"Defender of Freedom" award
NRA Recruiter
Second Amendment Foundation Member
Washington Arms Collectors Member
Arms Collectors of SW Washington Member

"Having a gun is like a parachute, if you need one and don't have it you may never need it again"

You nailed it. They are not perfect, but they have done more than any other organisation to preserve the 2nd Amendment the oldest and have educated more people on firearms than anyone. If people want them to be more hard nosed, join them and voice your opinion.
They are responsive. The NRA is its membership. People make the organization. People that bad mouth them or any true pro gun group are not really doing the 2nd Amendment fight any good.
I support every one of them.
Also a life member of the NRA and OSSA, But support GOA, OFF, USCCA, and all the pro gun groups They work damned hard for all of us !

 

[sailorfej]

Knowing the NRA (Life Member, Benefactor level) I do know that they carefully pick and choose what they support. Sometimes it's just a matter of the suit not being narrow enough in focus (like the Heller case) or it could hurt already ongoing litigation.

And yes, I don't always agree with all that the NRA does. I also wish some groups that are supposed to be for the 2nd amendment would quit "infighting and denigrating the NRA. That is a good tactic, honed to perfection by the Oblammer administration.

Deen
NRA Life Member, Benefactor Level
"Defender of Freedom" award
NRA Recruiter
Second Amendment Foundation Member
Washington Arms Collectors Member
Arms Collectors of SW Washington Member

"Having a gun is like a parachute, if you need one and don't have it you may never need it again"

I wasn't trying to denigrate the NRA, as I said I support the NRA, and I completely agree that few other organizations have done as much for the 2nd amendment as the NRA. For that matter, Charles Nichols (the Nichols in Nichols v Harris) would hardly for my first choice gun rights ambassador of the year either, he is often needlessly confrontational and too often resorts to personal insults against those he disagrees with. And while I think his legal criticisms of the NRAs legal strategy in California are completely on point, he has gone overboard in his other general criticisms of the NRA.

All that being said, his case if evaluated purely on its legal merits and in the context of current case law precedents, not only is it the best chance of overturning California's near complete ban on carrying firearms (concealed or open), but it stands a very good chance of winding up in SCOTUS, and it is exactly the type of case they like to hear. Not only that but it is a tailor made follow on to Heller, and it would fill a major gap in current 2A case law, the last few cases have established that the 2A applies to "keeping" arms, that the arms kept are the should be the same general type in common usage, and that the 2A applies individuals, the Nichols case will actually reinforce that "bearing" part of the 2A, and that restrictions on carry outside the home unduly encumber the right to "bear" the arm.

Do I wish there was less infighting in the Gun Rights community? yes. On the other hand I also wish that everybody was always right, then nobody would ever disagree (they would always agree with me ), we wouldn't have to fight for gun rights, hell in that case we wouldn't need gun rights. Unfortunately none of us are omniscient, and so some disagreement is always going to happen and is healthy in the long run.

I was simply trying to draw attention to a gun rights case that I think could make a huge difference for the pro 2A movement, and point out that the person behind the case needs all the support he can get, because he is proceeding without the support and in fact some opposition from the two largest gun rights groups in California and I disagree with those groups in this instance. I am asking people to look at this case, and support it if you agree with my assessment of it, and if not don't. Also if not feel free to come back and explain to me why I shouldn't put so much stock in it.

 

[RicInOR]

From 3 to 5
http://reason.com/archives/2014/03/18/five-gun-rights-cases-to-watch


NRA v. BATFE
This case is about who can legally obtain guns. It challenges the 1968 federal prohibition on licensed gun dealers selling handguns or handgun ammo to adults between the ages of 18 and 20. People in that age range can buy long guns, such as rifles or shotguns, and they can legally possess handguns. But they are barred from purchasing any of these items from licensed dealers, restricting their ability to obtain what they are permitted to own.


Drake v. Jerejian
This case is about where you can have and use your gun. First filed in November 2010, it challenges New Jersey's Handgun Permit Law, which says that carrying in public without a permit can get you 5 to 10 years in prison.

Cooke v. Hickenlooper
This case is about the size of magazine you can legally insert into your gun. Last year Colorado banned any newly purchased magazines that can hold more than 15 rounds. (Older 15+ magazines are grandfathered in.)

Wilson v. Cook County
This case is about the kinds of weapons you can own. In 2007, a trio of plaintiffs sued Cook County, Illinois (where Chicago is located), over a 2006 law banning certain types of guns and ammunition that the county deemed "assault weapons." The ordinance included no grandfather clause for those who thought they had been obeying the law up until now: They had 90 days to surrender the weapons, take them out of the county, or modify them to match the law's requirements

New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. City of New York
Title 38, which prohibits licensed handgun owners from taking guns almost anywhere outside of city limits. You cannot take your gun to your second home outside the city; you cannot take your gun to shooting practice outside the city; you can only travel with your gun within the state upon receiving a separate hunting permit. In the city, you can only take it to the shooting range

 

[GunRightsCoalition]

Many of these cases would fall apart once the right to bear arms is established through a SCOTUS decision.

 

[fd15k]

Frankly I think Nichols v Harris ( Status of California Open Carry Lawsuit « California Right To Carry ) is way more important

There are probably 100+ pages of discussions on Calguns.net about that and related cases by regular members, lawyers and actual litigating lawyers. Bottom line there is that Nichols is a clown, he is going to lose, and he can create bad case law SAF, CRPA, CGF and NRA may have to fight in the future. That is why that case doesn't have support you think it deserves.

 

[fd15k]

And you got this "information" from what source?

National Rifle Association Attacks Open Carry Lawsuit

For Immediate Release
California Right To Carry
Redondo Beach, California
Contact: [email protected]
9/18/2013


The National Rifle Association (NRA), through its state organization the California Rifle and Pistol Association (CRPA), filed a motion in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals asking that a lawsuit appealing the denial of a preliminary injunction against California's bans on openly carrying loaded and unloaded firearms in public be stayed until a decision in their two cases seeking concealed carry permits in San Diego and Orange County is decided. The Open Carry lawsuit was filed by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry. The case is named Nichols v. Brown.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=826339

 

[RicInOR]

Wilson v. Holder - Can those with Medical Marijuana permits purchase a firearm?
"This is because the dealer knew of Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) rules that stated "if you are aware that the potential transferee is in possession of a card authorizing the possession and use of marijuana under State law, then you…may not transfer firearms or ammunition to the person."

http://reason.com/blog/2014/03/18/challenge-barring-medical-marijuana-lice

"An opinion in that case was issued yesterday by U.S. District Court Judge Gloria Navarro, and it wasn't good. It upheld a motion to dismiss the case entirely by the federal government defendants."

http://dockets.justia.com/docket/nevada/nvdce/2:2011cv01679/83947

 

[fd15k]

Wilson v. Holder - Can those with Medical Marijuana permits purchase a firearm?
"This is because the dealer knew of Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) rules that stated "if you are aware that the potential transferee is in possession of a card authorizing the possession and use of marijuana under State law, then you…may not transfer firearms or ammunition to the person."

http://reason.com/blog/2014/03/18/challenge-barring-medical-marijuana-lice

"An opinion in that case was issued yesterday by U.S. District Court Judge Gloria Navarro, and it wasn't good. It upheld a motion to dismiss the case entirely by the federal government defendants."

http://dockets.justia.com/docket/nevada/nvdce/2:2011cv01679/83947

We haven't hashed out the stuff for 100% law abiding citizens yet, and already clowns from all over the place file lawsuits because they "know better". I really hope 9th denies the appeal, or there is a risk of yet another bad precedent establishing limitations on 2A. Plaintiffs should be carefully selected, argument must be well crafted, and the game must be synchronized with the key players. This just wasn't it.