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

[Gray Peterson]

hard to tell it is filtered through the observer and most of the notes reflect comments of only one judge. Still it is a valuable report

Maybe we should have an online listening party or something. :p

 

[teratos]

Maybe we should have an online listening party or something. :p

That would be so nerdy.......


(when and where?)

 

[press1280]

hard to tell it is filtered through the observer and most of the notes reflect comments of only one judge. Still it is a valuable report

It does look very favorable to our side, almost seeming like we could get a 3-0 thumping here(of course that's just second hand, the audio/transcripts may paint a different picture).
One thing I'm wondering about is the whole OC/CC deal. While the judges may be quite ready to rule for us, could they say that only OC is protected and try to send this back to the district court? That would seem to be the worst scenario, even worse than an outright loss which can be appealed immediately.

 

[teratos]

It does look very favorable to our side, almost seeming like we could get a 3-0 thumping here(of course that's just second hand, the audio/transcripts may paint a different picture).
One thing I'm wondering about is the whole OC/CC deal. While the judges may be quite ready to rule for us, could they say that only OC is protected and try to send this back to the district court? That would seem to be the worst scenario, even worse than an outright loss which can be appealed immediately.

There is legal precedent that you can't ban both. If you ban one, you must allow the other. I do not recall the case off hand. I'm sure they could say that you can only OC, that may be considered a "reasonable restriction". What would the good citizens of NYC think of that? I bet they would be scared and the 911 operators would be inundated with "man with gun" calls. I hope they do exactly that.....

 

[CrueChief]

There is legal precedent that you can't ban both. If you ban one, you must allow the other. I do not recall the case off hand. I'm sure they could say that you can only OC, that may be considered a "reasonable restriction". What would the good citizens of NYC think of that? I bet they would be scared and the 911 operators would be inundated with "man with gun" calls. I hope they do exactly that.....

Well then where will all the sheeple go to hide??......I know maybe they can hide " in the home! "

 

[press1280]

There is legal precedent that you can't ban both. If you ban one, you must allow the other. I do not recall the case off hand. I'm sure they could say that you can only OC, that may be considered a "reasonable restriction". What would the good citizens of NYC think of that? I bet they would be scared and the 911 operators would be inundated with "man with gun" calls. I hope they do exactly that.....

Right, only thing is that those legal precedents were from a time where CC was considered sneaky. In Gray's case in CO the court seemingly became too focused on OC over CC, possibly because they can cite those 19th and early 20th century cases better with OC. I hope the 2nd Circuit isn't considering a remand and want a whole new case against the state for OC. That'll set the clock back considerably.

 

[MDFF2008]

Audio Transcript Now Avaliable:

http://www.marylandshallissue.org/share/2ndoral.mp3

 

[esqappellate]

Audio Transcript Now Avaliable:

http://www.marylandshallissue.org/share/2ndoral.mp3

Thanks.

 

[fightinbluhen51]

Thanks for posting...

My goodness, are the judges just this nitpicky of Gura, or are they dense? Or is it part of the probing of the limits implied upon in Heller and McDonald.

ETA: Oh geez...not this crap again..."recurrent threat." Sounds like a good and substantial reason to me.

 

[krucam]

Thanks for posting...

My goodness, are the judges just this nitpicky of Gura, or are they dense? Or is it part of the probing of the limits implied upon in Heller and McDonald.

ETA: Oh geez...not this crap again..."recurrent threat." Sounds like a good and substantial reason to me.

I'm only halfway through, but that stuck out with me as well...

Judge: Yes, Heller recognized a right to self defense. What if I just want to carry it around just because I like cold steel? Is that protected?
A: Yes.

Judge: I like to shoot guns in the air on Cinco de Mayo?
A: States can regulate the firing of guns.

Judge: Arms includes shoulder mounted anti-aircraft weapons?
A: Arms in common use test per Heller.​

I'm still waiting for that Warm & Fuzzy feeling, with a ways to go, including the State's Atty.

 

[fightinbluhen51]

Oh yes...that was great as well...


Even better is this:

Is it for the legislature to regulate a 7shot clip or 15clips, or is it for myself, a judge to decide who doesn't know anything about the things besides this one time I shot at a woodchuck when I was 12 and missed, thank god. And so, is it to the legislature or myself or a public opinion poll, or are we back to shoulder fired missiles and grenades?

Seriously? This is the damned problem with our country in a whole, which is that we over regulate, over tax and over step all limits upon the government.

 

[esqappellate]

I'm only halfway through, but that stuck out with me as well...

Judge: Yes, Heller recognized a right to self defense. What if I just want to carry it around just because I like cold steel? Is that protected?
A: Yes.

Judge: I like to shoot guns in the air on Cinco de Mayo?
A: States can regulate the firing of guns.

Judge: Arms includes shoulder mounted anti-aircraft weapons?
A: Arms in common use test per Heller.​

I'm still waiting for that Warm & Fuzzy feeling, with a ways to go, including the State's Atty.

The Warm and Fuzzies to come later in the tape, to the extent they can exist at all. Interested in your take after you finish. I thought Gura did a very good job here. BTW, the length of this argument is very rare and does credit to the panel.

 

[fightinbluhen51]

Good grief...a judge belittling prior restraint and how the broad, wide ranging standards that accomplish a fiat ban, isn't unconstitutional.

 

[fightinbluhen51]

The Warm and Fuzzies to come later in the tape, to the extent they can exist at all. Interested in your take after you finish. I thought Gura did a very good job here. BTW, the length of this argument is very rare and does credit to the panel.

I noticed the "your light is on, stop looking at it."

Oh good grief...duty to retreat!

 

[esqappellate]

Thanks for posting...

My goodness, are the judges just this nitpicky of Gura, or are they dense? Or is it part of the probing of the limits implied upon in Heller and McDonald.

ETA: Oh geez...not this crap again..."recurrent threat." Sounds like a good and substantial reason to me.

This is the probing. The panel was actually very astute, challenging and well prepared. And you are right, the "good cause" requirement of NY is substantively indistinguishable from G&S in the MD law. They seemingly accept that the 2A applies outside the home but are searching to see if there is any way to limit the right outside the home in a way that sustains this good cause requirement. The State's lawyer makes a strong pitch that the good cause is simply a reasonable TPM restriction with the intent to ration the right to where it is needed the most, sorta like requiring securing access against a child. Gura's response is dead on. The panel understands the arguments quite well. Which way they will go is hard to tell. It does seem clear that unrestricted handgun carry bothers them. No surprise there.

 

[fightinbluhen51]

Sweet...a road raging judge with a colt 45 that he straps up to his thigh because he likes the feel it. I assume that malt liquor might would make your clothes a little clammy in the summer when it sweats.

 

[fightinbluhen51]

Clearly there is one judge on our side on this panel that gets "it." Backing up Gura's 1A parallel that words can be just as dangerous, and sometimes more so, than bullets.

 

[fightinbluhen51]

Another panel that does the Prosnier on Bars and Drinks kinda questioning too.

Gotta love it. (sorry for the live blogging, I can't capture and recap, I'd forget the depth of these orals).

For those interested, it's about an hour and 20 minutes of audio (which I'm pretty sure is about twice as long as most orals receive).

 

[fightinbluhen51]

LOL... "Can I carry a long gun outside 40 Foley's Square? What would happen to me if I did that? I don't know, I'd like to find out."

 

[esqappellate]

Another panel that does the Prosnier on Bars and Drinks kinda questioning too.

Gotta love it. (sorry for the live blogging, I can't capture and recap, I'd forget the depth of these orals).

For those interested, it's about an hour and 20 minutes of audio (which I'm pretty sure is about twice as long as most orals receive).

CA2 arguments are usually 10 minutes per side. This one is extraordinary.