|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
August 18, 2012, 08:29 PM | #51 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Oral arguments in Kachalsky are scheduled for next Wednesday, Aug. 22nd. The panel of Judges are:
Robert A. Katzmann - 1999 - Clinton Richard C. Wesley - 2003 - Bush Gerard E. Lynch - 2009 - Obama As you may (or may not) remember, the 2nd Circuit decided United States v. Decastro, No. 10-3773, 2012 U.S. (June 1, 2012). Then on June 6th, the Court ordered supplemental briefs from the Appellants and Appellees, as to how that case might or might not have merit in deciding the case at bar. What follows will be the supplemental brief by the Appellants/Plaintiffs (Kachalsky) and then the reply brief by the Appellees/Defendants (State of New York). |
August 18, 2012, 08:32 PM | #52 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
In this post we will have the supplemental brief by the Appellees/Defendants (State of New York), followed by the reply from the Appellants/Plaintiffs (Kachalsky).
The briefs by the County of Westchester have been omitted. |
August 18, 2012, 09:05 PM | #53 |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,468
|
I would say the state's brief is rather -- shall we say -- "weak."
|
August 22, 2012, 09:20 PM | #54 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
As I reported in the main 2A cases thread, earlier today, the oral arguments were scheduled to take place, today.
What I didn't find out until later, the CA2 does not publish the orals like most other Circuit Courts. Instead, a copy can be ordered and will be delivered to you. At a cost of about $30. A retired appellate attorney over at MDShooters has used his ECF login (which is different from a normal PACER account) to order the CD of the orals. In a few days, it should be present at MDShooters.com, where we can grab it. If I see it first, I'll let everyone know where to get it. |
August 23, 2012, 12:00 PM | #55 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
From a first impression by a New Yorker that was at the orals: http://www.nyfirearms.com/forums/law...tml#post259256
Quote:
On the flip-side, the New York Post is reporting: State lawmakers ready with array of gun-control bills - NYPOST.com |
|
August 23, 2012, 04:34 PM | #56 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 29, 2002
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 465
|
From the NYPOST article:
Quote:
__________________
Send lawyers, guns, and money... Armorer-at-Law.com 07FFL/02SOT |
|
August 24, 2012, 08:07 AM | #57 | ||
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
The gentleman in NY has posted more on the Kachalsky orals (see the link in my previous post). He first gives this disclaimer:
Quote:
Quote:
Esqappellate, a retired appellate attorney and a member of MDShooters, has used his ECF access to order the audio of the orals. I hope to bring that here, when it is available. |
||
August 24, 2012, 07:39 PM | #58 | ||
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
The Gentleman from NYFirearms.com has posted a bit more.
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
August 24, 2012, 08:53 PM | #59 |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,468
|
Hmmm ...
Interesting reading. I suppose it was deemed "strategic," but I'm actually sorry to see that Gura even used the word "reasonable." The 2nd Amendment RKBA is absolute, and "reasonable" has nothing to do with being "allowed" to exercise a fundamental, absolute right. Once you use the 'R' word, you're in essence conceding that the state has a right to decide when and where it's "reasonable" to allow you to carry, and then it's not a huge jump to allowing the state to decide who it's reasonable to allow to carry. Which is how we got here in the first place. |
August 24, 2012, 09:45 PM | #60 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 7, 2000
Location: AZ, WA
Posts: 1,466
|
Quote:
__________________
Violence is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and valorous feeling which believes that nothing is worth violence is much worse. Those who have nothing for which they are willing to fight; nothing they care about more than their own craven apathy; are miserable creatures who have no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the valor of those better than themselves. Gary L. Griffiths (Paraphrasing John Stuart Mill) |
|
August 24, 2012, 11:18 PM | #61 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,468
|
Quote:
But what this case is about (as well as the Maryland case) is not what "reasonable" regulations may be uniformly applied to the bearing of arms, but the prohibition of exercising a Constitutionally-guaranteed right for no clearly defined reason other than not being able to articulate a sufficiently scary-sounding immediate threat against your person. As the key saying puts it, "One should not need a permission slip to exercise a fundamental right." |
|
August 25, 2012, 09:52 PM | #62 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 7, 2000
Location: AZ, WA
Posts: 1,466
|
Quote:
__________________
Violence is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and valorous feeling which believes that nothing is worth violence is much worse. Those who have nothing for which they are willing to fight; nothing they care about more than their own craven apathy; are miserable creatures who have no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the valor of those better than themselves. Gary L. Griffiths (Paraphrasing John Stuart Mill) |
|
September 10, 2012, 09:10 PM | #63 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
The good folks over at MD Shooters (thank you Esqappellate for buying the audios - yes, plural) have assembled the Kachalsky oral arguments into one MP3 file and this is being hoster by Maryland Shall Issue (MSI - the local on the ground org). It is available, here. The file runs at 36.3 MB (1 hr and 20 min), so it is probably best to right click the link and save to your own computer.
Folks, this is unprecedented, as the CA2 generally allows only 10 minutes per side. Here, Alan Gura presents his side for 40 solid minutes, before the State gets its turn and the panel still allows Gura some rebuttal time! The panel is very well briefed (as can be seen by the amount of questions they "harass" Gura with). Oh, and he doesn't fall for the "in the Bar" thing that he got tongue-tied at the 7th with! |
September 12, 2012, 12:59 PM | #64 |
Member
Join Date: March 17, 2012
Posts: 32
|
There were two distinct differences with regard to questioning.
When judges wanted to question Gura they used hypothetical situations and reducto ad absurdum questions. When the judges questioned the states attorney, they used facts and case law. I found that to be most interesting of all. |
September 12, 2012, 03:03 PM | #65 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 13, 2009
Location: NJ
Posts: 1,254
|
These judges scare me with their silly questions.
Last edited by Brian Pfleuger; September 12, 2012 at 03:12 PM. Reason: their, not they're ;-) |
September 12, 2012, 08:37 PM | #66 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
If I may give my own observations and interpretations?
At oral arguments, judges more often than not question a plaintiff/appellant, who is challenging the constitutionality of a law (remembering that the law is presumed to be constitutional to begin with). Such questioning can seem brutal, but the judges are merely trying to get a grip on just how far the plaintiff/appellants theory extends. If you really listen to what is happening, as soon as Gura answers on point, the judge(s) move to a new question. Why was Gura "grilled" so much more than the State? Because Gura has more to say to the panel than the State. The very questions the judges asked, show several things. They are 2A novices. They wanted to get to the logical implications of Gura's theory. They wanted to see the policy implications. They were also very well versed in the briefings. Gura possibly made the best point of all, when he talked about the 1A analogy and "prior restraint." If the judges didn't at first "get it," they certainly did when Gura used the "permission from the King," analogy - They used it against the State AG, later on. Even though the NY AG used a TPM analogy as the constitutional reason for keeping the law intact, the judges didn't let him off the hook. It's rationing of a right and the AG was backed into a corner of his own making. That corner was first painted when the NY AG finally admitted that self-defense occurs outside the home. It was obvious to me that certainly 1, perhaps 2 judges were leaning towards Gura's arguments. There was a lot of cross-talk between them. |
September 13, 2012, 04:01 PM | #67 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 13, 2009
Location: NJ
Posts: 1,254
|
After listening to it again, they did a pretty good job grilling the defense. They had him on the defensive a lot and he really sounded at a loss most of the time, like he couldn't believe they were actually questioning him.
It'll be interesting to see how this goes, since NJ has a similar law regarding CC. Last edited by NJgunowner; September 13, 2012 at 04:07 PM. |
November 27, 2012, 10:52 AM | #68 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
The decision of the district court is affirmed.
Kachalsky et al. v. Cty. of Westchester et al. The CA2 panel did exactly what many of us thought. Although the suit was aimed at carry in public, as part and parcel of the right, the court looked only at concealed carry and concluded that the NY State law was a valid regulation. This, regardless of the fact that open carry is completely banned. The court sweeps past this with barely any regard at all. The court does spend 2 pages of writing on why they will not address 2A concerns by importing certain 1A standards. This, despite the fact that the CA4 and CA3 (and even another CA2 panel - US v. DeCastro) did import some of that reasoning. The core of the right, as seen by this CA2 panel, is "in the home." Anything else deserves less scrutiny. Here, the court couches its "reasonable regulation" in terms of intermediate scrutiny. This, like so many district court decisions is nothing more than rational basis in which the law stands. |
November 27, 2012, 12:30 PM | #69 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 14, 1999
Location: Pittsburg, CA, USA
Posts: 7,417
|
SO - the big question is, is this the "Carry Case" before the US Supremes that we've been waiting for?
__________________
Jim March |
November 27, 2012, 03:51 PM | #70 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 389
|
Not the exact same issues but I feel better about Moore/Shepard
An older lady who went through training and was licensed to carry in other states and who would have been armed except for Illinois' outright ban - who was brutally beaten in a church... That's a pretty good case. Moore is a corrections officer IIRC and at one time did carry on the job, but switched from being a state employee to a private security contractor employee - something like that. That's a pretty good case too - at least to point out the arbitrary nature of the Illinois law. Wouldn't it make sense for SAF to wait to hear what the 7th says before deciding what to do with Kachalsky? |
November 27, 2012, 05:48 PM | #71 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
This decision will have little to no affect on the IL cases.
It will have great effect on both Woollard and Piszczatoski. The MD AG didn't waste anytime. They have filed a 28J letter citing to Kachalsky. |
November 27, 2012, 07:58 PM | #72 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 389
|
I see hope for Moore in Kachalsky
Quote:
to intimate that the law didn't, Judge Posner rejected that - I'm referring to the 4 corners of the house argument, which Posner replied something like - "if you live in an apartment - you don't have any land" I know Judge Posner isn't beholden to other circuit court judges but my reasoning is this - if the judges in Kachalsky could see that an ourtright ban on public carrying is unconstitutional, then the Judges at the 7th circuit must certainly see that also. And if Judges Katzmann, Wesley and Lynch consider the proper cause exception in NY to cause NY's law to not be a complete ban on the possession of handguns in public, then IL, which has no proper cause provision must therefore have in existance a complete ban on the possession of handguns in public which is unconstitutional. Judge Williams talked about it in her example of a woman being stalked, and having to to disarm herself when going to and from work, and the stalker of course knowing that under Illinois law she would be vulnerable during that time... Trieble replied "It's a difficult policy choice that the legislature has made..." Posner interupts "Sounds pretty easy, other states do make an exception for people who have a protective order..." |
|
November 27, 2012, 08:07 PM | #73 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 389
|
I listened to the orals from Moore again...
It's actually amazing how many times the judges used the word "ban" in referring to Illinois UUW law. They didn't call it Illinois regulation - they referred to it as a ban. |
November 28, 2012, 01:56 PM | #74 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
So let's explore what Gura can do, at this moment.
If Gura decides to seek a petition of cert, he can attempt to get it before the Court in this years session. Or, he can take his time (he has until Feb. 27, 2013 to file) to craft a very well written brief, with the goal towards next years court session (and an early Oct. 2013 hearing date). Understand, there are risks in carrying this case further. Alan Gura will necessarily be weighing those risks. The State of New York will continue to quantify this case as a concealed carry case, as opposed to Gura's general right to carry. This will be an obstacle, as the lower courts have assumed the State is correct and relegated Gura's actual case to footnotes. This will be no small feat to turn this around, at this stage. Should Gura go for cert, and it is granted, the Court will not simply GVR the case (as some have implied). The Court will have to reach the merits and give some guidance to the lower courts before any such remand can be made. A more likely scenario (should cert be sought and granted) would be for the Court to decide if public carry is close enough to the core right of self-defense, that the State law should fall. That's not as easy as it might seem to us, on first blush. I believe that Justice Thomas and Justice Alito would be on our side. C.J. Roberts and Justice Scalia would lean towards our side, but would have to be convinced. Justice Kennedy however, would have to be coerced. Such coercion would necessarily entail Judge Posner (CA7 - Moore/Sheppard) issuing a well written decision in favor of the SAF/NRA. Gura holding back (in the hopes of a favorable CA7 decision) in filing for cert is a tactical response I believe he will make. Judge Posner is very well respected in legal circles, even within the Supreme Court. A decision written by him (Posner) striking the IL law and stating that citizens must be allowed some manner of carry for self-defense, would go a long way towards turning the current case from one of concealed carry alone, back to allowable carry in some form. This would probably move Justice Kennedy over to our side. Too, should a favorable decision be given at the CA7, and IL moves for cert, the odds for Kalchalsky would have just increased. There are several other scenarios, depending upon what the CA4 and CA3 decide. So, at this point in time, the dynamics are pretty fluid. With all that in mind, see: N.Y.'s Concealed Gun Licensing Scheme Is Upheld by Circuit |
November 28, 2012, 02:17 PM | #75 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
Excellent summary and analysis as usual, Al.
Quote:
If I correctly recall Posner's views on the matter, the idea that bearing is a home-bound right will get NO consideration from him. Since this case seems to rest on that error, it will have no persuasive authority with him. Here's to Posner doing the right thing. For we who are vested in a good outcome: What drama, what nail biting! So much at stake. |
|
|
|