11/09/2011 50 BRIEF & SPECIAL APPENDIX, on behalf of Appellant-Cross-Appellee Eric Detmer, Alan Kachalsky, Anna Marcucci-Nance, Johnnie Nance, Christina Nikolov and Second Amendment Foundation, Inc. in 11-3642, 11-3962, FILED. Service date 11/09/2011 by email, CM/ECF.  [11-3642, 11-3962]
In case you don't recognize any of the above, today Alan Gura filed his opening brief in Kachalsky v. Cacase
in the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals.
The Supreme Court has always accepted that the Second Amendment’s guarantee extends beyond the threshold of one’s home. As early as 1857, the infamous Dred Scott case reasoned that no Southern state would have adopted a constitution obligating it to respect privileges and immunities of citizenship held by African-Americans, including “the full liberty . . . to keep and carry arms wherever they went.” Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393, 417 (1857) (emphasis added).
While Scott’s odious holding was never correct, the opinion’s recognition of the fact that citizens enjoy a personal right carry arms was no aberration...
Mr. Gura goes on to list a few other historic cases and then add from Heller
Having defined the Second Amendment’s language as including a right to “carry” guns for self-defense, the Court helpfully noted several exceptions that prove the rule. Explaining that this right is “not unlimited,” in that there is no right to “carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose,” Heller, 554 U.S. at 626 (citations omitted), the Court confirmed that there is a right to carry at least some weapons, in some manner, for some purpose. The Court then listed as “presumptively lawful,” Heller, 554 U.S. at 627 n.26, “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places,” id., at 626, confirming both that such “presumptions” may be overcome in appropriate circumstances, and that carrying bans are not presumptively lawful in non-sensitive places.
Alan Gura then cites and explains the 4 cases, Nunn; Andrews; Reid
that the Heller
Court viewed as favorable, as well as several others, to further emphasize that individual carry is a right that extends outside the home.
Alan Gura emphasizes that while the State may regulate the form of carry, it cannot leave unbridled discretion, by a State actor, to deny the people of that right.
Alan Gura thoroughly attacks each and every aspect of the lower courts decision. In this, his opening salvo, it is anything but "brief." Sixty-seven pages long (not counting TOC and appendices), but still a very good read.
If I had anything else to add, it would be that Judge Legg (Woolard v. Brown
(Maryland)) take a long hard look at this brief, before making his decision, especially if he bases it on the Kachalsky