SAF sues New York

Discussion in 'The Constitutional & RKBA Forum' started by Marlin T, Jul 16, 2010.

  1. Marlin T

    Marlin T Well-Known Member

    Jul 8, 2005
    New Mexico
    SAF Sues in New York to Void 'Good Cause' Carry Permit Requirement

    BELLEVUE, Wash., July 15 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The Second Amendment Foundation has filed a federal lawsuit against Westchester County, New York and its handgun permit licensing officers, seeking a permanent injunction against enforcement of a state law that allows carry licenses to be denied because applicants cannot show "good cause."
    SAF is joined in the lawsuit by Alan Kachalsky and Christina Nikolov, both Westchester County residents whose permit applications were denied. Kachalsky's denial was because he could not "demonstrate a need for self protection distinguishable from that of the general public." Nikolov's was denied because she could not demonstrate that there was "any type of threat to her own safety anywhere." In addition to Westchester County, Susan Cacace and Jeffrey Cohen, both serving at times as handgun permit licensing officers, are named as defendants. The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, White Plains Division.

    Attorney Alan Gura is representing the plaintiffs, along with attorney Vincent Gelardi with Gelardi & Randazzo of Rye Brook, NY. Gura recently represented SAF and the Illinois State Rifle Association in their landmark Second Amendment Supreme Court victory over the City of Chicago.

    Under New York Penal Code Section 400.00, handgun carry permit applicants must "demonstrate good cause for the issuance of a permit," the lawsuit alleges. This requirement violates the Second Amendment, according to the plaintiffs.

    "American citizens like Alan Kachalsky and Christina Nikolov should not have to demonstrate good cause in order to exercise a constitutionally-protected civil right," noted SAF Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb. "Our civil rights, including the right to keep and bear arms, should not be subject to the whims of a local government or its employees, just because they don't think someone 'needs' a carry permit. Nobody advocates arming criminals or mental defectives, but honest citizens with clean records should not be denied out of hand."

    "Thanks to our recent victory before the Supreme Court," Gottlieb stated, "the Second Amendment now applies to state and local governments. Our lawsuit is a reminder to state and local bureaucrats that we have a Bill of Rights in this country, not a 'Bill of Needs'."

    The case is filed as Kachalsky v. Cacace, U.S. Dist. Ct. S.D. N.Y. 10-05413
    The Second Amendment Foundation ( is the nation's oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.

    SOURCE Second Amendment Foundation
    Back to top RELATED LINKS
  2. hogger129

    hogger129 Well-Known Member

    Nov 29, 2009
    Why should they even need a license to exercise their Constitutional rights in the first place let alone "show cause" for needing to get a license to exercise a Constitutional right?

  3. graehaven

    graehaven Well-Known Member

    May 26, 2007
    Rochester, NY

    I hope they win, and win big.

    This absurd gun law crap in NY has got to be stopped. It's outta control.
  4. Marlin T

    Marlin T Well-Known Member

    Jul 8, 2005
    New Mexico
    If they win this case it might effect all "may issue" states and I hope it does!

    If I'm legal there is no reason that I should be denied just because the sheriff doesn't like my haircut or whatever.
  5. wpage

    wpage Active Member

    Aug 25, 2009
    Dont get too excited that someone filed a summons.
  6. lentz

    lentz Former Guest

    Mar 12, 2010
    The crime rate in NY alone should "show cause"
  7. Bobitis

    Bobitis Guest

    Seems comical to me.
    Washington is a shall issue state, yet when I got my permit when I turned 21, they had the same statement on the application.
    They wanted 3 reasons as to why I wanted the permit. 'Because I can' was not an acceptable reason. I don't recall the other two examples they gave, but I wrote them back in the same order that they had listed them. Word for word.:p
    10 days later, I had my permit.:D
  8. belercous

    belercous Former Guest

    Aug 7, 2009
    From reading the Heller & McDonald decisions, I don't see this case winning on constitutional grounds. Neither case involved the right to carry outside the home, nor did the Court even imply that the 2nd Amen. covered such.
    Getting all in a rush and bringing cases to expand the 2nd could very easily backfire. An unfavorable decision would give the anti-gunners more incentive to legislate against us. Any right not specifically left to the people (as SCOTUS determines), will be assumed to be the province of gov. This was the reason why the F.F.'s did not enumerate our rights in the Original Constitution. (The B.O.R. wasn't added until the first Congress, that's why they are amendments. And only 11 of 12 made it, although it took about 200yrs. to get the 11th ratified, but it is not considered part of the B.O.R.'s.)
    All the Heller decision did was to disallow outright bans on handguns. McDonald extended (incorporated) that right to the states. Nothing in either of these decisions said anything about a right to carry, and as such, the right to carry is still left up to the states. (Anyone remember the 10th Amen? Which really meant little until now, and now is not when we want it to mean anything.)
    This case was a bad move. It ought to have been left for later, once "carrying" has been established as part of American tradition.
    When Gottlieb stated "the Second Amendment now applies to state and local governments. Our lawsuit is a reminder to state and local bureaucrats that we have a Bill of Rights in this country, not a 'Bill of Needs'", he was seriously mistaken. Either he has not read the cases, which I doubt, or he did not read them critically. I believe he read them as being most favorable to our side, not as the decision was written.
    The 2nd Amen., so far, only means that handgun ownership cannot be banned outright, and nothing more. I'd like it to mean more, but that is not what SCOTUS said. And the cases did not even hint that carrying a firearm outside the home was a constitutional right.
    We really don't want this case before the Court at this time. Later, but not now. This will prove to be a bad move, one that will set us back years if it ever gets to SCOTUS, which I seriously doubt it will. These laws need to be attacked on a state-by-state level, using state Constitutions, not the 2nd Amen.
    Remember, the extent of the 2nd Amen. rests with Justice Kennedy, and nothing in Heller or McDonald, even in obiter dicta, even hinted at the "bear arms" clause.
    Bringing this case will either greatly expand the meaning of the 2nd (not likely), or severely limit our rights for many years to come, if not forever. And all because someone got too antsy.
    Just callin' `em like I see `em. And I hope I've never been more mistaken in any legal analysis I've made.
    Diatribe over. Sorry, I've really got to stop doing this as it cuts into my drinking time.
Similar Threads
Forum Title Date
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum You Gotta Read This... First Grader Sues School Because Teacher Made Him Recite Pledge of Allegiance Jun 9, 2017
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum List of 2015 Montana Gun Legislative Issues Jan 14, 2015
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Ron Paul Issues Statement on ATF Gun Scandal Jun 21, 2011
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Legal alien wants CWP, denied, ACLU sues. Jan 7, 2011
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Election About 'Local Issues,' Not Obama Oct 17, 2010