Kachalsky v. Cacase - NY Carry - Cert Filed

As to California: there are two cases pending before the 9th Circuit and they're very cool in their own right. And with Kachalski dead they can't delay for much longer.

Two different Federal judges came to the same conclusions in NorCal and SoCal: "concealed carry can be restricted to may-issue so long as unloaded open carry remains legal". And then after those two judges ruled, the morons at the California legislature banned unloaded open carry...handing the 9th Circuit a horrible hot potato!

We've also got a 9th Circuit/Hawaii-based case...dunno status on that.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Not to get too far off track, but some people have the impression there's favorable and unfavorable circuits. Each panel is 3 judges out of a minimum of 11(the 9th has 30 something). It's the luck of the draw. Woollard in the 4th circuit, considered a conservative court because of the states encompassed, got 2 Clinton and 1 Obama appointee. Peruta in the 9th, however, got 2 GOP appointed judges. We have to remember the best way to SCOTUS is a circuit split, and that includes losing at least 1 case.

Woollard was just denied en banc(no suprise), so now 90 days to petition SCOTUS. Gura will obviously wait to see how IL shakes out, but it seems unlikely IL will push at this late stage. This also gives time for Peruta and Muller to get decided and get an official split.
 
Jim March said:
Madigan therefore is sitting on a very bad hand. She can appeal to the US Supremes and likely hand us gunnies a powerful win, or she lets the 7th Circuit ruling stand in which case we get either strong shall-issue or Vermont Carry in a matter of months.
Click to expand...

She's sitting on an excellent hand. She can safely ignore the 7th, because it has no enforcement powers, and Obama isn't going to help them out. Illinois is lost.

In the interim, the Illinois legislature can pass a carbon copy of New York's law, and Madigan can call the state in compliance and drag things out another couple years. If Posner goes to war with the 2nd Circuit with a stark break, the Supreme Court will likely take the case, but Roberts likes guns in theory, but not in practice, so this doesn't end well.

Don't win cases. Win elections.
 
Al Norris said:
In order to win, we have to fight where the battles take us. That is, in every case, unfriendly districts and unfriendly circuits.
Click to expand...

That's a strategy destined for failure, with negative consequences so great that rights in favorable jurisdictions are harmed.

If you want guns, move to where guns are welcome. You can't have it both ways.

And you are who, to tell everyone else to stop bringing cases?
Click to expand...

I'm the guy who's right. I'm the guy who knows how this works. Which guy are you?

Or, are you here just to stir the pot?
Click to expand...

The "pot" is gun rights, and I'm not the one stirring that up. The "pot" is not this stage or an ego war.
 
She's sitting on an excellent hand. She can safely ignore the 7th, because it has no enforcement powers, and Obama isn't going to help them out. Illinois is lost.
Click to expand...

Like hell.

If local law enforcement is ordered to disobey a federal civil rights ruling...well "stuff" just got very, very real.
 
She's sitting on an excellent hand. She can safely ignore the 7th, because it has no enforcement powers, and Obama isn't going to help them out. Illinois is lost.
Click to expand...
Off the top of my head, I don't recall if the case included a general injunction against enforcing the current law. If so, the federal courts can enforce their injunction through the use of their contempt powers, up to and including throwing people, or at least politicians, in jail.

If the case didn't include a general injunction, a separate suit could be brought if Illinois continues to enforce the law. In addition, every time local government, or individual acting under color of state law (including police) enforced that law, they could be sued for violating 42 U.S.C. sec. 1983 (violation of civil rights) for damages and attorney fees. All of this would be in federal court and, believe me, a few hefty judgments would take care of the problem. None of this would require President Obama's assistance.
 
smoking357 said:
Al said:
And you are who, to tell everyone else to stop bringing cases?
Click to expand...
I'm the guy who's right. I'm the guy who knows how this works. Which guy are you?
Click to expand...

I'm the guy who wrote an article that was published in Feb. 2007 that spelled out what the Court would do in Heller. What exactly have you done?
 
The Kachalski denial seems to have had an immediate effect on Illinois politics

Anti-gun lawmakers in Illinois introduced a may-issue carry bill in the form of an amendment - House Floor Amendment #1 to HB0831

It didn't take them long to choose the "may issue" strategy.

I noticed the Illinois / Moore thread was closed so I thought I'd put this here.
 
Anti-gun lawmakers in Illinois introduced a may-issue carry bill in the form of an amendment - House Floor Amendment #1 to HB0831

It didn't take them long to choose the "may issue" strategy.

I noticed the Illinois / Moore thread was closed so I thought I'd put this here.
Click to expand...
I'd guess they had that bill drafted before the ink in Posner's signature was dry and have just been waiting for some optimal moment within the deadline to unveil it.
 
Was just reading this article on Kachalsky and was wondering if this dim view of Alan Gura is widely held? I don't know much about him but I've seen his name referenced reverentially plenty of times on 2A forums ("Gura says...").

I'm not ready to make an opinion based on one article but this one - written by another 2A Lawyer - seems to suggest that Gura isn't the man for the job.




http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...in-Flawed-Gun-Rights-Case-Might-Take-Next-One
 
He's won two court cases in front of the Supreme Court.

I think the two big ones, too. Heller and McDonald not?

Edit: Which, if I am remembering right, means he got the 2A to be an individual right incorporated against the States.
 
I'm not ready to make an opinion based on one article but this one - written by another 2A Lawyer - seems to suggest that Gura isn't the man for the job.
Click to expand...
If Kuklowski has a better candidate for the job, I'm all ears.

As Jim pointed out, Gura knows what he's doing, and he's been a spectacular advocate. He won the biggest 2A case in pretty much forever, and he followed it with a second a year later.
 
He's won two court cases in front of the Supreme Court.

I think the two big ones, too. Heller and McDonald not?

Edit: Which, if I am remembering right, means he got the 2A to be an individual right incorporated against the States.
Click to expand...


But if you read the article in my post, the author suggests that the amicus briefs played a bigger role in Heller and that Gura's in-court performance wasn't up to snuff.


Again, I'm not making an arguement here, I'm just seeing if this opinion of Gura is an isolated thing.
 
The writer, Ken Klukowski, wrote the following:

McDonald was a three-way argument, where legal superstar Paul Clement argued for the NRA. Clement’s argument was flawless (as usual), and easily won the case. By contrast, not a single justice out of the nine--liberal or conservative--voted in favor of Gura’s argument.
Click to expand...

Did he forget Justice Thomas' concurring opinion, wherein Thomas wrote that the P or I clause (of the 14th - and thereby overturning Slaughterhouse, which everyone agrees should have been overturned) was in fact the right way to find for the plaintiffs? Remembering that without Justice Thomas' concurrence, the case would have been lost is a fact that an able attorney would have made note of... Unless you have an agenda.
 
Gura is selling hope, and that's what many here want. They desperately want to think that they'll be able to carry a gun on the streets of Los Angeles and New York City, and they'll back anyone who smokes that pipe with them.

I heard Professor Lund's argument in person, and it was, indeed, brilliant, economical, justifiable and correct.

For now, the folks at SAF and especially CalGuns must STOP! filing lawsuits, as these are destined for adverse rulings or hopefully only dismissal with prejudice.

Tom Servo said:
If Kuklowski has a better candidate for the job, I'm all ears.
Click to expand...

Let the NRA lead and give the orders. Just because you want there to be legal action doesn't mean there should be legal action.

Note: Gura has done much work, advanced many strong arguments, and raised much awareness for this right. He deserves a great deal of credit and gratitude.

When his client poses with a big check, however, it taints the movement. When Gura deliberately omits open carry arguments, some question his motives.
 
Last edited:
Some of the comments were interesting. I saw Charles Nichols posted. While he may lose his case, as he's in California, at least he's presenting a clear, complete and correct argument.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top