SAF sues Westchester County, NY to block "good cause" requirement for CCW

Patrick said:

You know, I meant to write it that way way. But I goofed and will leave my original text and this post as a testament to my knuckle-headedness, and an honor to your experience and intelligence.

But in my own smug defense, you misspelled "simpler".

Click to expand...

Guilty!

Patrick. what is the permit to own lawsuit you referred to? I follow these things pretty closely. it's gotta be in ny or Illinois right. sorry if I sound ignorant?

2ndsupporter said:

Patrick. what is the permit to own lawsuit you referred to? I follow these things pretty closely. it's gotta be in ny or Illinois right. sorry if I sound ignorant?

Click to expand...

I'd also like to know. I thought I was doing well keeping track of all of these.

The NYC lawsuit known as Kwong v. Bloomberg deals with permits to own. That's probably what he's referring to, where NYC has stated explicitly that it desires to minimize the number of people who can even own firearms at all and charges 30x more than the rest of the state to own a pistol, mandatory renewal every 3 years or it's a felony whereas the rest of the state it's one time lifetime fee, and when it was suggested that the fee be lowered to avoid them getting sued Bloomberg then suggested that in order to prevent a flood of people signing up make even a parking ticket be a disqualifier.

Looks like a 2-1 split(not sure which way). A written transcript would be helpful to know which judge is saying what. I believe 1 of the judges didn't say a whole lot so the transcript would allow for my non-attorney speculation...........

press1280 said:

Looks like a 2-1 split(not sure which way). A written transcript would be helpful to know which judge is saying what. I believe 1 of the judges didn't say a whole lot so the transcript would allow for my non-attorney speculation...........

Click to expand...

Eyewitness reporting here:

http://www.nyfirearms.com/forums/laws-politics/33122-kachalsky-oral-argument-2.html

Helps in figuring out who said what.

yellowfin said:

The NYC lawsuit known as Kwong v. Bloomberg deals with permits to own. That's probably what he's referring to, where NYC has stated explicitly that it desires to minimize the number of people who can even own firearms at all and charges 30x more than the rest of the state to own a pistol, mandatory renewal every 3 years or it's a felony whereas the rest of the state it's one time lifetime fee, and when it was suggested that the fee be lowered to avoid them getting sued Bloomberg then suggested that in order to prevent a flood of people signing up make even a parking ticket be a disqualifier.

Click to expand...

I was under the premise that this was dealing with fees only. I understand that the ultimate goal is permitless ownership, but explain to me how this will effect registration requirements in the home.

The idea is removing excessive and purposefully obstructive requirements, fees only being the specific example in question at the time.

2ndsupporter said:

Patrick. what is the permit to own lawsuit you referred to? I follow these things pretty closely. it's gotta be in ny or Illinois right. sorry if I sound ignorant?

Click to expand...

NY, IL and some extent DC all touch on the permit to own question. We're not able to just attack permits head-on yet (some would disagree), so the first steps are to go for the fringe laws. NY has been mentioned above, but DC/IL have systems that are demonstrably disaffecting ownership.

It doesn't matter whether the intent was to prevent ownership. It's the outcome that matters. Frankly it would be better for us were the harm accidental, because it is easy for courts to distinguish harm caused by targeted intent and harm caused by broad policy. They would be easy to call 'different'. Using a decision that overcomes the Chicago laws - laws that were intended to cause harm - to overturn permits in general would be tough.

I don't think permits are going away because of court action. At least, not permits for carry. Heller invited the question on ownership permits and I think those are vulnerable. One thing you can say about all these districts getting sued is proves that permits can be used to cause harm. The question is whether they provide any benefit. If a system requiring permits-to-own provides no compelling benefit, but generally causes harm...is it constitutionally sound?

That's where this is all leading, and so far the nice folks in NJ, CA, NY, IL and DC are proving our points. They are ever helpful.


We need to keep an eye on the prior restraint arguments and whether the courts support them. Prior restraint doctrine is the goal sought after in all these cases. With it, we win before we even start the fight. It could be used to challenge permits of all forms.

Outside of legislation, I think there is a definite possibility within the next few years we could see a FOPA-esque law from Congress that fixes some of these issues at a federal level. All kinds of changes are waiting for the right mix of lawmakers, someone who will sign it and a court that will defend it. I don't call the forced removal of laws infringing a constitutional right 'statist', but I'm sure someone will come along soon to tell me I am wrong.

Patrick said:

Heller invited the question on ownership permits and I think those are vulnerable.

Click to expand...

Agreed. Home ownership without registration should have been requested in the original decision by plaintiffs. However it wasn't.

The reason for my original post was to inquire about home ownership registration lawsuits. Are there any currently? I would think that would be a good stepping stone before trying to take carry to scotus.

I am well aware of the chess match going on. I am also well aware of the hope that unlicensed open carry is the form of carry we are shooting for at scotus. If ruled for oc at scotus we then hope that legislation will aim for concealed carry due to "can't yell fire in a theatre" argument.

I guess I went off on a tangent but am frustrated in the manner of attention to discretionary licensing (or lack of). Ive seen baby steps mentioned in many post regarding current lawsuits. I find the current set of lawsuits to be more than that.

2ndsupporter said:

Agreed. Home ownership without registration should have been requested in the original decision by plaintiffs. However it wasn't.

The reason for my original post was to inquire about home ownership registration lawsuits. Are there any currently? I would think that would be a good stepping stone before trying to take carry to scotus.

I am well aware of the chess match going on. I am also well aware of the hope that unlicensed open carry is the form of carry we are shooting for at scotus. If ruled for oc at scotus we then hope that legislation will aim for concealed carry due to "can't yell fire in a theatre" argument.

I guess I went off on a tangent but am frustrated in the manner of attention to discretionary licensing (or lack of). Ive seen baby steps mentioned in many post regarding current lawsuits. I find the current set of lawsuits to be more than that.

Click to expand...

I think the "long term" view is that steps are required to get us to that level.

As far as "carry permitting" I think that the general trend is going to be this:
1) Are firearms constituionally protected?
2) Are firearms in the home constitutionally protected?
3) Are the states/municipalities held to the 2A?

*this is where we are now*

4) Is it a right to carry outside the home?
5) Is it a right to own without a permit?
6) Is it a right to carry without a permit?


So we are at least a step away from the question of ownership without permit. Kwong will address onerous cost/restrictions, and I think what is good about it is that the case is probably the strongest in the nation regarding permit costs. NYC has a long history of using special funds (Pistol license and bridge tolls are two big ones) for general funds. Ownership without permit may be a tough pill because SCOTUS says that the issue is "presumptively lawful", and you know the courts are going to ride that into the sunset up until the circuits and perhaps the SCOTUS review. Luckily we can mirror 60's ACLU cases for poll taxes to get that win.

2ndsupporter said:

Agreed. Home ownership without registration should have been requested in the original decision by plaintiffs. However it wasn't.

The reason for my original post was to inquire about home ownership registration lawsuits. Are there any currently? I would think that would be a good stepping stone before trying to take carry to scotus.

I am well aware of the chess match going on. I am also well aware of the hope that unlicensed open carry is the form of carry we are shooting for at scotus. If ruled for oc at scotus we then hope that legislation will aim for concealed carry due to "can't yell fire in a theatre" argument.

I guess I went off on a tangent but am frustrated in the manner of attention to discretionary licensing (or lack of). Ive seen baby steps mentioned in many post regarding current lawsuits. I find the current set of lawsuits to be more than that.

Click to expand...

I am not aware of any directly attacking registration or pre-purchase permits right now (other than the cost of same). But the entire goal of "Prior Restraint Doctrine" will probably end it. Prior Restraint is hard to apply outside of certain "accepted" rights, but once there it raises the bar to regulation significantly. Three rights that are currently subject to some form of PR doctrine protection: Free Speech, Free Exercise (religion) and Abortion.

Prior restraint says you cannot force a woman to get a government permit for an abortion, or for someone to go to church. Apply the same logic to ownership permits and see where that goes.

I ad-libbed a bit here on the examples and a smart person might come through and clean them up a bit. But I think I hit the goals.

28j letter

Here is Gura's 28j letter on Hightower

A loss in a decision that came down 11/27 Started a new thread

http://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=96104