Decision in Kachalsky LOSS

Mooseman said:

This was not the good news I was waiting to hear. Will this decision have any bearing in the way the judges in the CA4 will look at Woollard?

Click to expand...

Mooseman said:

This was not the good news I was waiting to hear. Will this decision have any bearing in the way the judges in the CA4 will look at Woollard?

Click to expand...

esqappellate said:

Indeed it will.

Click to expand...

aquaman said:

was the court stacked with democrat appointed judges?

Click to expand...

hvymax said:

It is clearly too late to work within this degenerate system.

Click to expand...

Pg 15/49
Defendants counter that the proper cause requirement
8 does not burden conduct protected by the Second Amendment.
9 They share the district court’s view that the Supreme
10 Court’s pronouncement in Heller limits the right to bear
11 arms for self-defense to the home.

12 Heller provides no categorical answer to this case.
13 And in many ways, it raises more questions than it answers.
14 In Heller, the Supreme Court concluded that the Second
15 Amendment codifies a pre-existing “individual right to
16 possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.” 554
17 U.S. at 592. Given that interpretation, the Court struck
18 down the District of Columbia’s prohibition on the
19 possession of usable firearms in the home because the law
20 banned “the quintessential self-defense weapon” in the place
21 Americans hold most dear—the home. Id. at 628-29.

Click to expand...

Pg 17/49
14 What we know from these decisions is that Second
15 Amendment guarantees are at their zenith within the home.
16 Heller, 554 U.S. at 628-29. What we do not know is the
17 scope of that right beyond the home and the standards for
18 determining when and how the right can be regulated by a
19 government. This vast “terra incognita” has troubled courts
20 since Heller was decided. United States v. Masciandaro, 638
21 F.3d 458, 475 (4th Cir. 2011) (Wilkinson, J., for the
22 Court).

Click to expand...

Pg 26/49
18 Plaintiffs’ attempts to equate this case with Heller or
19 to draw analogies to First Amendment concerns come up short.

Click to expand...

jrosenberger said:

This decision, unlike some others, appears to this layman to be a coherent piece of legal writing. While I obviously disagree with the court's assertion that Second Amendment protections are limited to the home, the rest of their analysis clearly flows from that one error. I'm not sure whether that's good or bad for us and I defer to those more knowledgeable on that point.

On the positive side, it seems to be more cleanly open to appeal than some of the other cases that confuse the facts (CA1, I'm looking at you). If another case were decided in our favor at SCOTUS before this one, this is an easy GVR. '2A applies outside the home, try again with that in mind.'

IMO, the CA7 cases are the best vehicle for SCOTUS, as since IL bans carry entirely, the issue is more focused. Paging Judge Posner, Richard Posner, please pick up the white courtesy phone.

Click to expand...

krucam said:

Time for the Supreme Court to decide this "in the Home" question once and for all....



They give Heller a fair reading, recognizing its limitations:


Although we have two courts in this one upholding the Statute at question, I'd say the language in this one is begging for an answer from One First. Although we would rather take a winning case up, I don't see why this one wouldn't stand a decent chance of a successful Cert Petition by itself, no split and with an 0-2 record. It may be our only "shot" for this term.

Peterson (CA10), Sheppard/Moore (CA7) and Woollard (CA4) opinions should be coming shortly and will certainly be aware of the Kachalsky ruling. An active appeal will change the tone favorably, if not substantially.



There is a difference between "keep" vs "keep and bear"....

Click to expand...

erwos said:

One of them was apparently an avid hunter, but apparently not a handgun guy.

Click to expand...

esqappellate said:

Nothing much good for us in this opinion. Note that there would be no direct conflict between this decision and a win in the CA7 case (Moore) as the latter merely would hold that the 2A right applies outside the home (Illinois bans carry in public completely). The court in Kachalsky was perfectly willing to "assume" that premise and still uphold the good cause requirement under intermediate scrutiny.

Click to expand...

kachalsky CA2 decision said:

Heller explains that the “core” protection of the Second Amendment is the “right of law abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.” Heller, 554 U.S. at 634-35. Although we have no occasion to decide what level of scrutiny should apply to laws that burden the “core” Second Amendment protection identified in Heller, we believe that applying less than strict scrutiny when the regulation does not burden the “core” protection of self-defense in the home makes eminent sense in this context and is in line with the approach taken by our sister circuits.

Click to expand...