How Not To Win Friends And Influence Justices

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) considers himself worthy of authoring an amicus brief for a case before the Supreme Court. He should think again. Despite a long legal career before being elected to the Senate which culminated with him serving as both the Attorney General of Rhode Island for one term and before that as the Clinton-appointed US Attorney for Rhode Island, his brief in NY State Rifle and Pistol Association v. City of New York is a polemic and not an argument.

Moreover, as the son and grandson of diplomats, you would have thought somewhere along the line it would have rubbed off on him how to be diplomatic towards those that matter. Daddy served as deputy ambassador to the Republic of Vietnam followed up as the ambassador to Laos and then Thailand. Granddad was ambassador to Guatemala and Colombia and served earlier on the commission that wrote the Treaty of Versailles.

Whitehouse was joined in this polemic, I mean amicus brief, by Senators Dick Durbin (D-IL), Mazie Hirono (D-HI), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) who are all lawyers by training. They begin the brief arguing that the NYSRPA, the petitioners, are asking the Court to be their allies in " a “project” to expand the Second Amendment and thwart gun-safety (sic) regulations." They continue that it is no wonder polls show the Supreme Court is "motivated mainly by politics." It goes downhill from here.

They then argue that it was the National Rifle Association, the Federalist Society, and other conservative groups fought to make sure that Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh would be on the Court to "break the tie" in favor of the Second Amendment. It goes on to say about the Federalist Society:

The Society counts over eighty-six percent of Trump administration nominees to the circuit courts of appeal and to this Court as active members. It is not yet clear who the powerful funders are behind Leonard Leo and the Federalist Society judicial selection effort, nor what took place as the Federalist Society was “insourced” into the Trump administration’s judicial selection process.5 But massive political spending and secrecy are rarely a salubrious combination.

In other words, these fine senators are pissed off that President Trump has nominated active members of an organization dedicated to an interpretation of the Constitution that preserves the original meaning. They would much prefer those of the Living Constitution stripe.

This brief then goes on to attack the amicus briefs in favor of the NY State Rifle and Pistol Association implying that they are stooges of the NRA. Eight of the amici are affiliated with the NRA. However, most of those are from only one amicus brief - that of the National Sheriffs Association. Then, heaven forbid, a number of amici are 503(c)(4) social welfare organization who are not required to disclose their donors. As the secretary of the Maryland Democratic Party might note, this makes them harder to dox. Of course much of this is ludicrous. Accusing groups like the Pink Pistols and GOA of being stooges of the NRA is laughable.

Whitehouse ends Section I of the brief with this.

Out in the real world, Americans are murdered each day with firearms in classrooms or movie theaters or churches or city streets, and a generation of preschoolers is being trained in active-shooter survival drills. In the cloistered confines of this Court, and notwithstanding the public imperatives of these massacres, the NRA and its allies brashly presume, in word and deed, that they have a friendly audience for their “project.”

You might think Whitehouse might now try to curry favor with the justices in Section II and you'd be wrong. After a few paragraphs saying how the Court shouldn't be answering moot questions and legislating from the bench, he then accuses the Court's majority of being the tools of big business, the GOP, and fat cats.

Recent patterns raise legitimate questions about whether these limits remain. From October Term 2005 through October Term 2017, this Court issued 78 5-4 (or 5-3) opinions in which justices appointed by Republican presidents provided all five votes in the majority. In 73 of these 5-4 decisions, the cases concerned interests important to the big funders, corporate influencers, and political base of the Republican Party. And in each of these 73 cases, those partisan interests prevailed.

Then he accuses the petitioners of engaging in strategic "faux litigation". What he is speaking of is strategic civil rights litigation with carefully chosen plaintiffs and with the purpose of building precedent. The interesting historical aspect of this is that the model for this strategic litigation was none other than the NAACP Legal Defense Fund run at the time by future Justice Thurgood Marshall.

For example, we have seen flocks of “freedom-based public interest law” organizations that exist only to change public policy through litigation, and which often do not disclose their funders. We have seen behavioral signals, like litigants who rush to lose cases in lower courts “as quickly as practicable and without argument, so that [they] can expeditiously take their claims to the Supreme Court” (ordinarily, in litigation, litigants seek to win). Almost invariably, and as we have seen in this case, such plaintiffs are accompanied by throngs of professional amici, whose common funding sources and connections to the organizations behind the supposed party-in-interest are obscured by ineffective disclosure rules.

Instead of being flattered, Whitehouse seems to say how dare these dirty, low down conservatives imitate the tactics and strategies of the Left!

He then ends the brief with a threat.

The Supreme Court is not well. And the people know it. Perhaps the Court can heal itself before the public demands it be “restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics.” Particularly on the urgent issue of gun control, a nation desperately needs it to heal.

Whitehouse is no FDR but he thinks his threat of packing the Court is going to sway it. His demeaning attitude should irritate even the most ardent liberals on the Court. Whether this case is ultimately dismissed as moot or not, there will be more cases that have even more impact for Second Amendment rights that are now or soon will be in the pipeline.


UPDATE: I'm not the only one who found Whitehouse's brief to be a polemic and not a real argument. Prof. William Jacobson at Legal Insurrection covered it as well. Note the comments. I agree with the person who said " The Court should strike the brief without a right to refile an amended brief, and impose sanctions."

It Was A Big Day For Amicus Briefs

Monday and Tuesday were big days for amicus briefs in NY State Rifle & Pistol Association et al. v. City of New York. By my count, there were 25 briefs submitted pro and con but mostly in favor of NYSRPA. Obviously, when you have 25 briefs that is a lot of reading. I haven't even begun to start.

In Favor of New York City

• Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence (sic)
• Brady and Team Enough

In Favor of Neither Petititioner

• Second Amendment Law Professors
• Patrick J. Charles

In Favor of NY State Rifle and Pistol Association

• National African American Gun Association, Inc.
• Pink Pistols
• The Madison Society Foundation
• Academics for the Second Amendment
• George K. Young
• National Rifle Association
• Commonwealth Second Amendment
• Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence
• Professors of Second Amendment Law, Second Amendment Foundation, CCRKBA, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, Millennial Policy Center, and Independence Institute
• Firearms Policy Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition, and Calguns Foundation
• Black Guns Matter
• Mountain States Legal Foundation
• Gun Owners of America, Inc., Gun Owners Foundation, The Heller Foundation, Tennessee Firearms Association, Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund, and Restoring Liberty Action Committee
• Cato Institute
• Bradley Byrne and 119 Other Members of the US House of Representatives
• The Liberal Gun Club
• California Rifle and Pistol Association
• Robert Leider
• The State of Louisiana et al
• American Civil Rights Union
• United States

The counsels of record for the petititioners (NYSRPA) read like a who's who of Second Amendment attorneys. You have Alan Gura, Stephen Halbrook, Dave Kopel, Don Kilmer, Stephen Stamboulieh, David Jensen, Dan Schmutter, Dave Hardy, and the list goes on. If you have been following Second Amendment law for the last 10-15 years you would have come across them one way or another.

SCOTUS To New York City - Motion Denied

The City of New York had filed a motion to hold the briefing schedule in NY State Rifle and Pistol Association v. City of New York in abeyance. Their argument was that since the NYPD were proposing to modify regulations on transport for those with premises permits that the briefing schedule should be suspended. In other words, we say we are going to change the regulations in question which might moot the case so don't make us go to all the work necessary to respond to the plaintiffs.

In the orders issued by the Supreme Court today, their motion was denied.

18-280       NY STATE RIFLE & PISTOL, ET AL. V. NEW YORK, NY, ET AL.

The motion of respondents to hold the briefing schedule in abeyance is denied.

Paul Clement is the attorney of record for the NY State Rifle & Pistol Association and opposed this motion to hold briefing in abeyance. He said that "a stay is neither necessary nor appropriate" and then went to note the case was over six years old.

NYC Blinks. Unfortunately

When the Supreme Court surprised us by granting certiorari in NY State Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York et al, those of us in the pro-rights community rejoiced. This would be the first major Second Amendment case involving firearms accepted for cert since McDonald v. Chicago. A number of states as well as a number of gun rights organizations filed amicus briefs urging the Court to accept the case. As issue in the case was a New York City law that forbid those with handgun licenses from traveling outside the city limits with their handguns. They were only allowed to transport their handgun to one of seven licensed ranges within the city.

It was felt that this case might be used to establish both the right to carry outside the home and to set the standard that should be used in Second Amendment cases. David Kopel said the case offered the opportunity to "to begin reining in lower court nullification of the Supreme Court’s precedents in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago." Brian Doherty writing in Reason noted that the Second Circuit "believed that the constitutional right to keep and bear arms pretty much only counts in the home, and thus these transport laws do not harm its core purpose." He went on to say the many American believe their right to self defense does not end when they step out the door of their home.

At the end of March I noted an op-ed by Ladd Everitt, Director of George Takai's gun control organization One Pulse for America, which urged the City of New York and the NYPD to change the law forbidding transport. I postulated that the gun control lobby was getting a bit nervous by this case and wanted the city to do what it took to moot the case. While I don't think Everitt's op-ed would case the City of New York to reevaluate its law, I'm sure some heavy hitters among the gun prohibitionists getting on-board this bandwagon would.

Michael Bloomberg's wholly funded mouthpiece, The Trace, ran a story on Monday on the case and by Friday the City of New York had filed a motion with the Supreme Court advising them that the NYPD was engaging in a proposed rulemaking that would moot the case.

From the city's attorney:

The Court granted the petition for a writ of certiorari in this case on January 22, 2019, and petitioners’ merits brief is currently due on May 7, 2019.

I write to advise the Court of a proposed rulemaking. If adopted in accordance with established procedures, the proposed rule would render this case moot before the parties complete the merits briefing in this case. For this reason, I also write to request that the Court stay the current briefing schedule pending final action on the proposed rule.

The proposed rule would allow residents with a premises permit for their handgun to transport them, unloaded, in a locked container, with the ammo in a separate container to:

• Another premises of the licensee where the licensee is authorized to have and possess a handgun;
• A small-arms range/shooting club authorized by law to operate as such, whether located within or outside New York City; and
• A shooting competition at which the licensee may possess the handgun consistent with the law applicable at the place of the competition.

The NRA-ILA released a statement calling the move, in essence, a sham.

“The City of New York clearly knows that its current restrictions on the carrying and transportation of lawfully owned firearms are unconstitutional and will fail under any standard of constitutional review, as the NRA has been saying for years. Today, it asked the U.S. Supreme Court to ignore the Constitution and allow the City to slow walk a narrow expansion of its current policy through a lengthy bureaucratic process -- the result of which, even if adopted, would still unduly infringe upon the fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment. That is not how things work in the Supreme Court; the Court does not put its review on hold while the government embarks on a journey that at best might fix only a limited part of the constitutional defect. This is nothing more than a naked attempt by New York City to resist Supreme Court review of policies that even New York must recognize as inconsistent with the holdings in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago. The City of New York did not respect its citizens' Second Amendment rights before the Supreme Court granted review in this case and it will not respect them going forward. We are confident that the Court will reject New York's desperate attempt to avoid review of its blatantly unconstitutional laws."

 I'm not sure the NRA is correct in being confident that the Supreme Court will reject New York City's request to hold off on briefing the case. Given the chance to avoid the issue, I think the Supreme Court as led by Chief Justice Roberts may do just that. They have had many other opportunities to take another Second Amendment case and have punted.

Remington Plans To Appeal Connecticut Supreme Court Ruling To SCOTUS

The Connecticut Supreme Court ruled on March 14th that the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act did not protect Remington and its fellow defendants in a case brought by families of some of the Newtown murder victims. The split decision allowed the case to go back to the trial court level for adjudication. Given the strong dissent in the case and the way the majority made up a rationale out of whole cloth to support their decision, it was only a matter of time before an appeal was filed with the United States Supreme Court.

Remington filed a motion with the Connecticut Supreme Court yesterday requesting a stay in the decision as they plan to appeal to the SCOTUS.

Remington is filing a Petition for Certiorari in the United States Supreme Court in accordance with the applicable Rules of the United States Supreme Court. The basis for jurisdiction in the Supreme Court is this Court’s decision on an important federal question that conflicts with a decision of a United States court of appeals. U.S. Sup. Ct. R. 10. Specifically, Remington will ask the United States Supreme Court to consider and decide whether CUTPA is the type of statute Congress intended to serve as a “predicate statute” under § 7903(5)(A)(iii) of the PLCAA, a violation of which may deprive firearm manufacturers and sellers threshold immunity against being sued. See 15 U.S.C. § 7902(a) (“A qualified civil liability action may not be brought in any Federal or State court.”). As this Court recognized, “courts that have construed the predicate exception are divided” on whether Congress intended for violation of statutes, like CUTPA, to serve as an exception to PLCAA immunity. Soto, 331 Conn. at 136.

The motion goes on to give a legal rationale for the issuance of a stay.

The Court should stay proceedings pending the United States Supreme Court’s decision to either deny Remington’s Petition for Certiorari or its decision on the merits of the case. Practice Book § 71-7 provides:

When a case has gone to judgment in the state Supreme Court and a party to the action wishes to obtain a stay of execution pending a decision in the case by the United States Supreme Court, that party shall, within twenty days of the judgment, file a motion for stay with the appellate clerk directed to the state Supreme Court. The filing of the motion shall operate as a stay pending the state Supreme Court's decision thereon.

If proceedings are not stayed and Remington is required to undergo the costly and time-consuming burdens of litigation, including further discovery, motion practice and possibly trial, it will irreparably lose the intended benefit of threshold PLCAA immunity from suit. The United States Supreme Court has consistently recognized that “[u]ntil … threshold immunity is resolved, discovery should not be allowed.” Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982).

According to the Associated Press, Remington has until June to file the actual petition for a writ of certiorari. The same article quotes the attorney for the plaintiffs as saying, "is a matter of law for the state of Connecticut.” Given that the case revolved around the supremacy of Federal law in what is arguably a Federal matter, this is a case that should be heard by the SCOTUS. That is, if they want to preserve the intent of Congress and the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution.

Bumpstocks Didn't Get Stay - What To Do Now

This past Friday the US Supreme Court denied the plaintiffs in Guedes et al v. BATFE and Codrea v. Barr a stay in the bump stock ban rule and referred the request back to the Circuit Court for the DC Circuit.

18A1019 GUEDES, DAMIEN, ET AL. V. BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, ET AL.

The application for stay, presented to The Chief Justice and by him referred to the Court, is denied.

Applicants request that if we deny this application we grant a limited stay of 120 hours to allow them to come into compliance with the Final Rule. We refer the issue of such a stay to the D.C. Circuit for its consideration.

Justice Thomas and Justice Gorsuch would grant the application.

So where does this leave the case now?

The Firearms Policy Foundation released a statement by email along with the response of the Circuit Court on Sunday evening. If you do have a bump stock and are a member of one of the organizations such as Florida Carry or the Firearms Policy Foundation, you have until 5pm, Wednesday, April 10, 2019 to legally turn it in.

From FPF:


On Friday, the Supreme Court denied our legal team’s request for a stay (i.e., postponement) of the ATF’s Final Rule re-classifying “bump-stock-type” devices as illegal machineguns while we continue to litigate the various claims we raised in our lawsuit and in the other consolidated cases. The D.C. Circuit subsequently ordered the following:

PER CURIAM ORDER [1781463] filed that, based on the government’s representation that it will not enforce the Bump-Stock Rule against the named plaintiffs or their bona fide members before 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, April 10, 2019, the emergency joint motion to extend stay order [1781365-2] be denied and the administrative stay entered on March 23, 2019, and clarified on March 25, 2019, be dissolved. The Clerk is directed to issue the mandate forthwith. Before Judges: Henderson, Srinivasan and Millett. [19-5042, 19-5044]

The Government (DOJ/ATF) has agreed to allow the individual plaintiffs in Guedes, et al. v. BATFE, et al. and the organizational plaintiffs’ – i.e., Firearms Policy Foundation, Florida Carry, Inc., and Madison Society Foundation, Inc. -- bona fide members (as well as the individuals in the consolidated Codrea, et al. action) to come into compliance with the new Final Rule by 5p.m. on Wednesday, April 10, 2019. The Government also represented that it “will also retain the bump stocks” that are provided to them in compliance efforts until our legal action is completely concluded.

Friday’s Supreme Court decision to deny the stay we requested was disappointing but not entirely unexpected. But importantly, there is much litigation left before the cases are disposed of. Our team is currently working on a petition for en banc rehearing by the full D.C. Circuit. And we are prepared, if need be, to petition the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari (review).

We maintain that the Government’s new rule is unconstitutional and unlawful. And we will continue to aggressively litigate this case and work to defend American gun owners from this unlawful ban mandated by President Donald Trump. Updates will continue to be posted to our BumpstockCase.com case webpage.

In an abundance of caution, we wanted to make you aware of how the Final Rule could affect owners of affected devices. As set forth in the Final Rule, 83 Fed.Reg. 66530, and according to the ATF, a bump-stock-type device owner’s options are:

1) Destroy the bump-stock device according to the ATF’s published “Bump Stock Destruction Instructions”; or,

2) Surrender it/them to the “nearest” ATF office. (ATF advises that it is best to make an appointment beforehand with the nearest ATF office.) You can find your local ATF field office and their phone number at https://www.atf.gov/contact/local-atf-offices.

Non-compliance with the ATF’s Final Rule (i.e., continued possession of a bump-stock-type device) could lead to serious criminal liability. Individuals (or a company/organization) who maintain possession of an affected device can be prosecuted for unlawful possession of a putative machinegun, where he/she/they can be imprisoned for up to 10 years and fined up to $250,000 (or more in some cases) per violation.

Chief Counsel Joshua Prince of Firearms Industry Consulting Group, a division of Civil Rights Defense Firm, P.C., who is representing Firearms Policy Foundation and numerous other plaintiffs in Guedes, et al. v. BATFE, et al., has suggested that individuals who wish to comply with the ATF’s Final Rule by surrendering their device to the ATF do so under protest.

As you may be aware, both ATF’s website relating to bump-stock devices and the Final Rule, 83 Fed.Reg. 66530, declare that “current possessors also have the option to abandon bump-stock-type devices at the nearest ATF office.” In spite of that, however, some reports (and our own experience) suggest that not all ATF local offices are accepting bump-stock devices. Thus, you should call the local ATF office before you travel there to confirm that they are, indeed, accepting affected devices.

If they are accepting such devices, then make them aware that you intend to visit their office to surrender your bump-stock device(s) under protest and inquire as to whether they have any specific procedures for your entry into the building.

Before you go, you will want to take pictures of your bump-stock device(s), in case there is ever a question as to the condition, make, and model of it/them. And you should also consider preparing a letter, such as the Sample Letter provided below, to advise the ATF that you are providing them your bump-stock device(s) under protest.

When you go, provide the ATF agent handling your matter with a copy of the letter and demand that they provide you with a property receipt that reflects their receipt of your bump-stock device(s) and specifies the make and model of the device(s). Be aware that they may attempt to have you sign an ATF 3400.1 Form – Consent to Forfeiture or Destruction of Property and Waiver of Notice – which you should NOT sign under ANY circumstance. In the event that they ask you to sign an ATF 3400.1, inform them that the only ATF form you are willing to sign is an ATF 3400.23 – Receipt of Property and Other Items. If they argue at all with you, politely tell them to review the internal memo that ATF circulated regarding the right of individuals to surrender bump-stock-type devices under protest and those individual’s right to refuse to sign an ATF 3400.1 form.

It would also be prudent to separately document your experience of the encounter in writing – such as the date and time of your visit, the location of the ATF office you went to, the names or other identifying information (ID #, etc.) of all ATF agents or persons you spoke with, the details of all discussions, and any other information they told or provided you – and keep it in a safe place.

You can also let our team know if the ATF in any way refuses or rejects your attempt to comply with the Final Rule. You can submit a report of your issue to hotline@fpchq.org and/or contact your attorney for specific legal advice.

In the event that ATF elects to institute a forfeiture action against your property, they are required to serve you with a copy. If that happens, you should immediately contact an attorney, preferably one who specializes in federal firearms law, if you wish to challenge ATF’s ability to forfeit your property. Again, you can submit a report of your issue to hotline@fpchq.org, but always contact your attorney for specific legal advice.

Again, we will continue to aggressively litigate this case and work to defend American gun owners from this unlawful and unconstitutional ban.

If you are able, please help support this important lawsuit and our fight for your rights by making a tax-deductible donation at FightATF.com.

NOTE: This message and its contents are intended to provide general information only. It is not intended to provide legal advice. You should always contact your attorney if you want or need specific legal advice. 

The Anti's Are Getting Worried About A Supreme Court Case

The Supreme Court agreed to hear NY State Rifle and Pistol Association v. The City of New York in January. The case involves an absurd New York City regulation that forbids those with handgun permits from taking their legally owned handguns outside the city limits of New York. These permits only allow a person to keep the handgun in their residence or to practice at one of only seven firing ranges within the city limits. They cannot take their handguns to vacation homes, to ranges outside the city limits, or to competitions outside the city regardless of how it is stored.

Yesterday, Ladd Everitt, Director of One Pulse for America and formerly the communications director for Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (sic), had an op-ed in the New York Daily News urging the city to repeal its handgun transport ordinance. This is the same Ladd Everitt who delighted in portraying those of us in the gun culture as "insurrectionists" and leading demonstrations outside NRA headquarters that attracted about a dozen protesters.

From his op-ed:

A ruling in NYSRPA vs. NYC could overturn not only the city’s gun transport reg, but also “may-issue” laws governing concealed carry of firearms in public in New York and seven other states. Carry licenses are more difficult to obtain than premises licenses in NYC. Law enforcement officials have discretion to deny carry licenses to applicants with a history of violence. The NRA spent $1 million to get Kavanaugh confirmed to the Supreme Court because they believe he will provide the decisive fifth vote to eliminate such discretion by declaring a new, individual right to carry guns in public.

New York City leaders don’t have to fall into the trap the NRA is baiting for them. It is within the authority of NYPD Commissioner James O’Neill to revise or repeal the regulation at the center of NYSRPA vs. NYC. If he took this step (conceivably with the blessing of Mayor de Blasio) and cleared the way for premises licensees to transport secured firearms to locations outside the city, the plaintiffs’ stated grievance would be remedied. The Supreme Court might decide to drop the case before ruling on it.

Ladd may be an asshole but he isn't dumb. He realizes the danger to the gun control lobby if the Supreme Court rules against New York City which they probably would in all likelihood. In addition to his concerns about may-issue concealed carry permits, the Supreme Court could finally clarify the standard to be used by lower courts in deciding Second Amendment cases. If they said it must be strict scrutiny and they backed this up by taking cases where courts applied intermediate scrutiny, it would open the door to a large round of 2A litigation.

Mayor Adrian Fenty of the District of Columbia was sure of the rightness of DC's ban on handguns. He decided that DC would appeal their loss in the Court of Appeals in the Heller case to the Supreme Court. We know that turned into DC v. Heller and a recognition that the Second Amendment was an individual right.

Ladd concludes by saying:

It’s true that allowing New York City residents to transport guns outside the city would entail certain public safety risks, even if the practice was regulated. But with the gun violence epidemic increasing in the United States, our communities simply cannot withstand newfound constitutional protections for violent “good guys with a gun." Now is the time for the NYPD to step up and protect all Americans by repealing NYC’s gun transport ordinance.

I love Ladd's hyperbole even when he is way off base. The problem isn't with honest citizens who own a firearm, perhaps have a carry permit, and who engage in armed self-defense. The problem is with violent criminal actors (to use Dr. William Aprill's phrase). They view gun laws as something to be ignored just like they ignore the laws dealing with theft, assault, and homicide.

When you see a Michael Bloomberg, a Shannon Watts, or one of the Brady co-presidents calling for New York City to ditch this law and moot the NYSRPA case, then you will know the gun control lobby is really running scared. Coming as this op-ed does from the periphery of the gun control lobby, it is a sign that some are awakening. I just hope the rest continue along with their smug, elitist attitudes thinking that they can't lose.

A Sign Of Things To Come?

Rogers et al v. Gurbir Grewal et al is a case from New Jersey that is a challenge to the state's may-issue concealed carry law. It is currently on appeal to the Supreme Court seeking a writ of certiorari after the Third Circuit said New Jersey's law met intermediate scrutiny.

In late January, the attorneys for New Jersey filed a waiver saying they didn't intended to file a response to the petition for a writ of certiorari by Thomas Rogers and the New Jersey Association of Rifle and Pistol Clubs. This could be taken as a sign that New Jersey fully expected the Supreme Court to summarily deny the petition for a writ of certiorari.

As Guns.com reported earlier today, the Supreme Court has now issued an order requiring New Jersey to file a response by March 21st.

The Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs issued a release yesterday that said, in part:

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court required the State of New Jersey to file a brief in response to ANJRPC's petition asking the High Court to hear its challenge to NJ's carry laws. Under the Supreme Court's order, the State of New Jersey is required to file papers by March 21, arguing why the High Court should not agree to hear ANJRPC's appeal. NJ had previously ignored the appeal.

While the move is not a guarantee that the Supreme Court will agree to hear the appeal, the fact that the court is requiring NJ to take a position on ANJRPC's request is significant, and signals that the court is not willing to take any action without first hearing from both sides.

The case has attracted a number of amicus briefs on behalf of Rogers and ANJRPC. These include briefs from the National African American Gun Association,  a number of law enforcement groups and state gun associations, the Second Amendment Foundation, the National Rifle Association, and the American Civil Rights Union. There is also an amicus brief in support of Rogers from the attorney generals and governors of 24 states which was organized by Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich.

As the petition for the writ notes, Mr. Rogers met all the requirements for a carry permit from the state of New Jersey with the exception of showing a direct threat to his life. He has been robbed at gun point and manages an ATM service company which, by definition, involves large amounts of cash. Police in Wall Township, NJ agreed he met the training eligibility requirements but "he failed to show Justifiable Need."

One can only hope that this move by the Supreme Court is a positive sign and that they will finally take up a carry case. This is especially true as there are diverging opinions between the circuits as well as a divergence in the proper level of scrutiny.

NY State Rife & Pistol Case Unnerves Brady Campaign

I had been waiting to see the response of the gun prohibitionists to the Supreme Court granting certiorari in NY State Rifle & Pistol v. City of New York. Jonathan Lowy, head of the Brady Campaign's Legal Project, didn't disappoint. A fundraising email was sent out yesterday under his signature yesterday afternoon.

He said, in part, that the stakes are high and it is a case of "life and death".

The Supreme Court announced yesterday that, for the first time in almost a decade, it will hear a Second Amendment case – the first gun case to be decided by a Court with two Donald Trump-appointees. The case, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, challenges a city ordinance governing transportation of firearms. Make no mistake: the stakes could not be higher. Commonsense gun safety laws across the country are at risk. We need your support to make sure that the voices of Americans who want stronger gun regulation are heard loudly in the Supreme Court.

The stakes for this case are nothing short of life and death. Whatever the Supreme Court says in its decision will help determine whether Americans maintain the right to enact the strong, commonsense public safety laws they want and need to protect loved ones and communities from gun violence, or if judges will take this right from us. But the Framers put “well-regulated” in the Second Amendment and “the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” in the Declaration of Independence for good reason. We are committed to making sure the Supreme Court doesn’t write the gun industry’s guns-everywhere vision into our Constitution.

 He goes on to say that the Supreme Court never meant the Second Amendment to apply outside the home as evidenced by the Heller decision. In my opinion, he has misconstrued the late Justice Scalia's decision.

What is interesting about all of this is that none of the gun prohibitionist organizations bothered to file amicus briefs against the Supreme Court granting cert in this case. The only amicus briefs were from a coalition including GOA, another organized by the Attorney General of Louisiana on behalf of a number of states, and another from the Western States Sheriffs Association and various law enforcement groups. These all were in favor of cert being granted. I don't know whether it was hubris or ignorance that explains the casual approach of the gun control industry to this case but I am certain they will now be submitting amicus briefs fast and furiously in support of the position of New York City.

Knife Rights Will Appeal NY "Gravity Knife" Case To SCOTUS

Knife Rights has announced that they will appeal their long-running case against New York over the definition of gravity knives to the Supreme Court. The case centers around common folding knives that have been the target of enforcement by the NYPD and the Manhattan District Attorney. The victims of this unjust definition have usually been trades people and minorities.

From Knife Rights on their plan to appeal:

Knife Rights' NYC Gravity Knife Case Appeal Headed To U.S. Supreme Court

Knife Rights is going forward with an appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States of the Second Circuit's decision in favor of New York City and District Attorney Cyrus Vance, Jr. in our long running civil rights lawsuit over their persecution of pocket knife owners.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg last week granted us a 60-day extension until January 13th, 2019, for submission of our petition for a writ of certiorari asking the Court to hear our appeal.

While our lawsuit against New York City and DA Vance centers on their abusive enforcement of New York State's gravity knife ban against owners of common pocket knives, the focus changes somewhat as it moves to the Supreme Court. Keep in mind that the Supreme Court does not generally agree to hear a case just because any particular decision in a case is unjust, irrational or just plain terrible, all of which describe this ruling in spades.

Beyond settling major constitutional issues, the Court will sometimes choose to resolve differences in the application of Federal law among different Federal circuit courts when its decisions are not applied the same throughout the U.S. The Second Circuit panel's ruling regarding our constitutional vagueness claim in this case opens up that possibility with starkly split decisions between it and other circuits, as well as splits between a number of state courts. The writ explains why this case is important and worthy of the Court's limited time.

A Supreme Court decision to hear the case could affect the implementation and enforcement of a wide spectrum of laws to persons throughout the U.S. It is no longer just about these common folding knives. New York City's enforcement of the state's gravity knife law against common folding knives is now the vehicle to answer the bigger constitutional question at issue. Only if the Supreme Court accepts the case do we get to argue the merits of our particular case as it reflects this bigger issue.

It's always long odds for any case to be accepted by the Supreme Court. However, not making the attempt ensures we lose. And, that would allow very bad precedent to be set in stone.

Taking a case to Supreme Court is an expensive proposition, more so for a small organization like Knife Rights. We still need to raise significant funds for this effort if we don't want to hand a victory to New York Governor Cuomo, DA Vance andr New York City Mayor de Blasio

Please consider a year-end TAX-DEDUCTIBLE donation to Knife Rights to support our efforts at the Supreme Court.  Donate at:  www.kniferights.org/donate/foundation

A Photo That Needs No Words

Fred Schilling, Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States

This Reporter Gets It

Kimberly Strassel is a journalist and member of the Wall Street Journal's editorial board. Unlike many in her profession, she is a conservative. Moreover, she has been steadfast in her support of Judge Brett Kavanaugh and has been very vocal about it on Twitter.

Yesterday, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (RINO-AK) broke with her Republican colleagues and voted against invoking cloture on the nomination of Judge Kavanaugh. While saying that Kavanaugh was a good man she said he was not the right man for the Supreme Court "at this time".

Strassel, in a pair of tweets, points out what Murkowski is really standing for.


<

2)
--to abandon due process and presumption of innocence.
--to potentially leave High Court at a 4-4 deadlock, putting the loony 9th circuit in control of everything that matters to Alaska--development, prop rights, gun rights, enviro rules, etc.
Quite the statement.

— Kimberley Strassel (@KimStrassel) October 5, 2018

Cloture Invoked On Kavanaugh Nomination

The Senate voted 51-49 to invoke cloture on debate regarding the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court. This means that a final vote can be taken as early as Saturday afternoon. Cloture was invoked at 10:36am EDT which started the 30 hour clock on debate. If the Democrats relinquish the floor at anytime during that 30 hour period, the final vote can be called.

The only Democrat to vote for cloture was Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) while the only Republican to vote against it was Lisa Murkowski (R-AK). Manchin is up for re-election this year while Murkowski doesn't have to face Alaska voters until 2022. President Trump won both states in the 2016 election.

If this vote holds without any more Republican defections, then Judge Kavanaugh will become Justice Kavanaugh. The one wrinkle in this right now is Sen. Steve Daines (R-MT) who plans to be out of town on Saturday to attend his daughter's wedding. Too bad she didn't have a June wedding!

The ayes and nays are below:

Grouped By Vote Position 

YEAs ---51

Alexander (R-TN)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Blunt (R-MO)
Boozman (R-AR)
Burr (R-NC)
Capito (R-WV)
Cassidy (R-LA)
Collins (R-ME)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Cotton (R-AR)
Crapo (R-ID)
Cruz (R-TX)
Daines (R-MT)
Enzi (R-WY)
Ernst (R-IA)
Fischer (R-NE)
Flake (R-AZ)
Gardner (R-CO)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Heller (R-NV)
Hoeven (R-ND)
Hyde-Smith (R-MS)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johnson (R-WI)
Kennedy (R-LA)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lankford (R-OK)
Lee (R-UT)
Manchin (D-WV)
McConnell (R-KY)
Moran (R-KS)
Paul (R-KY)
Perdue (R-GA)
Portman (R-OH)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rounds (R-SD)
Rubio (R-FL)
Sasse (R-NE)
Scott (R-SC)
Shelby (R-AL)
Sullivan (R-AK)
Thune (R-SD)
Tillis (R-NC)
Toomey (R-PA)
Wicker (R-MS)
Young (R-IN)

NAYs ---49

Baldwin (D-WI)
Bennet (D-CO)
Blumenthal (D-CT)
Booker (D-NJ)
Brown (D-OH)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Coons (D-DE)
Cortez Masto (D-NV)
Donnelly (D-IN)
Duckworth (D-IL)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Harris (D-CA)
Hassan (D-NH)
Heinrich (D-NM)
Heitkamp (D-ND)
Hirono (D-HI)
Jones (D-AL)
Kaine (D-VA)
King (I-ME)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Leahy (D-VT)
Markey (D-MA)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Murphy (D-CT)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Peters (D-MI)
Reed (D-RI)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schatz (D-HI)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Smith (D-MN)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Udall (D-NM)
Van Hollen (D-MD)
Warner (D-VA)
Warren (D-MA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)

Ford's Prepared Testimony Before The Senate Judiciary Committee

Earlier today I published the prepared testimony of Judge Brett Kavanaugh which contained his unequivocal denial of participating in any and all sexual assaults. Needless to say, I believe him.

Dr. Christine Blasey Ford's attorney has now posted her prepared testimony which is scheduled to be delivered before the Senate Judiciary Committee tomorrow. If this were the court of law instead of the court of public opinion, this case would never have even gotten to trial. As it is, this was meant to be the Democrat's bombshell revelation that would take down a good man and destroy his chances of serving on the Supreme Court. I imagine it was also intended to force him to step down from his position as a judge on the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. I think it will fail as well it should.

Dr. Ford Written Testimony by on Scribd

Judge Kavanaugh's Prepared Statement For Thursday's Senate Hearing

Judge Brett Kavanaugh's prepared testimony for his appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee has been released. In it, he addresses the charges by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford that he sexually attacked her at a party 36 years ago. He categorically denies it.

It is a strong statement but I wish he might have taken the approach of Justice Clarence Thomas and called it for what it is - bullshit. However, Kavanaugh is a more measured, judicious, and temperate person than I am which is why he's a judge and I'm not.

As posted at The Atlantic:

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Feinstein, and Members of the Committee:

Eleven days ago, Dr. Ford publicly accused me of committing a serious wrong more than 36 years ago when we were both in high school. I denied the allegation immediately, unequivocally, and categorically. The next day, I told this Committee that I wanted to testify as soon as possible, under oath, to clear my name.

Over the past few days, other false and uncorroborated accusations have been aired. There has been a frenzy to come up with something—anything, no matter how far-fetched or odious—that will block a vote on my nomination. These are last-minute smears, pure and simple. They debase our public discourse. And the consequences extend beyond any one nomination. Such grotesque and obvious character assassination—if allowed to succeed—will dissuade competent and good people of all political persuasions from serving our country.

As I told this Committee the last time I appeared before you, a federal judge must be independent, not swayed by public or political pressure. That is the kind of judge I am and will always be. I will not be intimidated into withdrawing from this process. This effort to destroy my good name will not drive me out. The vile threats of violence against my family will not drive me out. I am here this morning to answer these allegations and to tell the truth. And the truth is that I have never sexually assaulted anyone—not in high school, not in college, not ever.

Sexual assault is horrific. It is morally wrong. It is illegal. It is contrary to my religious faith. And it contradicts the core promise of this Nation that all people are created equal and entitled to be treated with dignity and respect. Allegations of sexual assault must be taken seriously. Those who make allegations deserve to be heard. The subject of allegations also deserves to be heard. Due process is a foundation of the American rule of law.

Dr. Ford’s allegation dates back more than 36 years, to a party that she says occurred during our time in high school. I spent most of my time in high school focused on academics, sports, church, and service. But I was not perfect in those days, just as I am not perfect today. I drank beer with my friends, usually on weekends. Sometimes I had too many. In retrospect, I said and did things in high school that make me cringe now. But that’s not why we are here today. What I’ve been accused of is far more serious than juvenile misbehavior. I never did anything remotely resembling what Dr. Ford describes.

The allegation of misconduct is completely inconsistent with the rest of my life. The record of my life, from my days in grade school through the present day, shows that I have always promoted the equality and dignity of women.

I categorically and unequivocally deny the allegation against me by Dr. Ford. I never had any sexual or physical encounter of any kind with Dr. Ford. I am not questioning that Dr. Ford may have been sexually assaulted by some person in some place at some time. But I have never done that to her or to anyone. I am innocent of this charge.

The Committee Vote Is Friday

September 25, 2018

 

RESCHEDULED NOTICE OF COMMITTEE EXECUTIVE BUSINESS MEETING

 

        The Executive Business Meeting originally scheduled by the Committee on the Judiciary for Monday, September 24, 2018 at 10:00 a.m., in Room 226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building has been rescheduled for Friday, September 28 at 9:30 a.m.

 

        By order of the Chairman.

I. Nominees

Brett M. Kavanaugh, to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States

Jonathan A. Kobes, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Eighth Circuit

 

Kenneth D. Bell, to be United States District Judge for the Western District of North Carolina

Stephanie A. Gallagher, to be United States District Judge for the District of Maryland

Mary S. McElroy, to be United States District Judge for the District of Rhode Island

Carl J. Nichols, to be United States District Judge for the District of Columbia

 

John M. O'Connor, to be United States District Judge for the Northern, Eastern and Western Districts of Oklahoma

 

Martha Maria Pacold, to be United States District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois

 

Mary M. Rowland, to be United States District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois

 

Steven C. Seeger, to be United States District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois

II. Bills

S.2785, DETER Act (Durbin, Graham, Blumenthal, Cruz)

S. 3178, Justice for Victims of Lynching Act of 2018 (Harris, Scott, Feinstein, Leahy, Durbin, Whitehouse, Klobuchar, Coons, Blumenthal, Hirono, Booker)   

A New Word For The Political Lexicon - Feinsteined

Ari Fleischer, former press secretary for Pres. George W. Bush, has come up with a new word for the political lexicon. It is Feinsteined. This is when an anonymous letter from an anonymous source with an unknown allegation is supposedly sent to the FBI in an effort to derail the nomination of a judicial candidate. In this case, the nominee is Judge Brett Kavanaugh and the allegations may or may not be something non-sexual he did at a party with a girl when he and she were 17 years old.

First came getting “Borked.” Now there is getting “Feinsteined.” A secret source. An unknown allegation (from high school) and an FBI referral. This isn’t advice and consent. It’s attack and burn. https://t.co/YKWlox1klo

— Ari Fleischer (@AriFleischer) September 14, 2018

In the interest of full disclosure, I may or may not have gotten drunk at a New Year's Eve party when I was 17 and may or may not have kissed a girl at the stroke of midnight who was another guy's girlfriend and may or may not have gotten in trouble with my mom for coming home drunk from a party.

Email Subject Line Of The Day

You have to hand it to the gun prohibitionists. Those that don't have Mike Bloomberg's money at their disposal will find any reason to ask for money. This is especially true of that cult of personality known as Giffords.

Here is the subject line of their latest email missive asking for money.

Gabby and Mark need you to rush an emergency donation to help us stop Brett Kavanaugh's nomination to serve on the Supreme Court. Let me explain why this request is so important.

Don't wait. Don't think about it. Send money now. Operators are standing by. A donation of only $3 will feed a starving prohibitionist for a day. Wait, I think I'm getting these pleas for donations confused a bit.

The email goes on to promise, "We are no doubt going to send a number of emails about Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination." At least that is honest of  their Executive Director Peter Ambler to acknowledge that this just the first in a series of emails. Having been on their mailing list for a few years, I can assure you that each and every one of them will have some "ask" for a donation or to sign up on their mailing list.

GOA Supports Kavanaugh Nomination

This is one endorsement from a gun right group I didn't see yesterday morning. It is from Gun Owners of America. There endorsement is a bit more tempered than that of the NRA or SAF. In my opinion, it is like that of some of us in the gun rights community or that of social conservatives. We had favorites other than Kavanaugh but can live with him as he will help solidify the conservative majority on the Supreme court.

From GOA:

Erich Pratt, Executive Director of Gun Owners of America (GOA), issued the following statement on Pres. Donald Trump’s nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court:

“Gun Owners of America is optimistic that Judge Brett Kavanaugh will be a huge improvement over the retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy on many constitutional issues, including the Second Amendment.

“Initial reports suggest that Judge Kavanaugh deeply respects the Second Amendment, even though he was not the strongest of the finalists.

“Nevertheless, Judge Kavanaugh filed a pro-gun dissent in Heller II, arguing that Washington, DC’s ban on semi-automatic firearms was arbitrary and unlawful.

“In fact, his dissent was so well argued that GOA’s subsequent legal briefs have repeatedly held up his dissent as the model to follow.

“In another case, Kavanaugh correctly interpreted the Firearm Owners Protection Act to find that a defendant could not be sentenced to 30 years in prison for use of a fully-automatic firearm if he was unaware that the gun fired automatically.

“Kavanaugh also supported the prevailing opinion in the Citizens United case, which affirmed GOA’s voice in the political arena.

“GOA hopes that the Senate will confirm Kavanaugh — and that the Supreme Court will take up more Second Amendment cases, thus repealing the onerous and unconstitutional restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms that exist throughout the country.”

And Now The Reactions From The Prohibitionists, Part 3

Let it not be said that the cult of personality known as Giffords would be left out of making their opposition to Judge Brett Kavanugh known. While I may have serious doubts that Ms. Giffords actually wrote her piece in opposition, it does go out over her name.

From Giffords and Giffords Law Center:

July 9, 2018 — Giffords, the gun safety organization founded by former Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and Captain Mark Kelly, released the following statements after the announcement of President Trump’s nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court following the retiring of Justice Anthony Kennedy.

Former Representative Gabrielle Giffords:

“In nominating Judge Kavanaugh to be the next Supreme Court justice, the Trump Administration is once again showing brazen disregard for the people it claims to protect. Judge Kavanaugh’s dangerous views on the Second Amendment are far outside the mainstream of even conservative thought and stand in direct opposition to the values and priorities of the vast majority of Americans. America needs a Supreme Court justice who respects the Second Amendment but who also realizes reasonable regulations that reduce gun violence do not infringe on anyone’s constitutional rights. But that’s not the kind of justice President Trump nominated today.

“America’s gun violence epidemic weighs daily on the minds of so many families in our country. Parents live in fear of hearing their children describe to them what it’s like to go through an active shooter drill. Too many people in communities across the country live in fear of being shot in their neighborhoods. In states across the country, students and voters have been speaking up, taking to statehouses, and demanding that lawmakers pass effective gun safety legislation. Their advocacy is delivering results: just since the massacre in Parkland, more than 50 gun safety bills have passed in 26 states. Should the Senate confirm the nomination of Judge Kavanaugh, we have every indication to believe that he will prioritize an agenda backed by the gun lobby, putting corporate interests before public safety. Make no mistake, the progress we’ve achieved passing firearm laws that save lives every day will be in serious danger.”

Hannah Shearer, Staff Attorney and Second Amendment Litigation Director at Giffords Law Center

“Judge Kavanaugh has expressed a dangerous hostility toward reasonable gun regulations and made clear he believes the government’s power to address gun violence is extremely limited. Judge Kavanaugh rejects the idea that courts should consider public safety when judging gun cases and would strike down bedrock gun laws like those that restrict civilian use of the dangerous, military-style weapons regularly used in mass shootings.

“Even Justice Scalia, one of the most conservative Supreme Court justices in modern history, endorsed reasonable firearm regulations like the ones Judge Kavanaugh would strike down. Judge Kavanaugh’s positions on the Second Amendment are outliers far outside the mainstream, and confirming him to the Supreme Court could negatively impact efforts to fight gun violence for many years to come. The notion of Judge Kavanaugh serving on our nation’s highest judicial bench should worry Americans who care about the safety of their families and communities. Now is the time for them to speak up and demand a nominee who will respect centuries of American legal tradition, recognize that gun rights have always gone hand-in-hand with responsible regulations, and put the life and liberty of all Americans ahead of the interests of the gun lobby.”

Since District of Columbia v. Heller was decided by the Supreme Court ten years ago, the lower courts have overwhelmingly upheld reasonable gun safety laws more moderate than the handgun ban Heller invalidated. The United States Supreme Court has not granted review in a significant Second Amendment case since Heller and its companion case, McDonald, and they have denied review in more than 80 cases. The confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh could mean that the Supreme Court intervenes more in these lower-court cases and overturns decisions that have consistently protected public safety.

In the near future, the Supreme Court may have the opportunity to rule on a variety of Second Amendment issues that are pending in the lower courts. For example, a series of NRA-backed lawsuits were filed this spring to challenge strong concealed carry permitting laws in New Jersey, Maryland, and New York. The NRA has also filed or supported a number of suits challenging critical gun safety measures adopted after the Parkland massacre, including laws that restrict access to the large capacity magazines used in Parkland and other mass shootings. Any one of these cases could be the next major Second Amendment case to reach the Supreme Court, with critical implications for public safety.

Frankly, I do hope Hannah Shearer is correct in her assumption that the Supreme Court might finally start hearing Second Amendment cases. Their failure to do so merely has encouraged judges in lower courts who disagreed with Heller to ignore that opinion and to use the Supreme Court as a doormat.