"Representative Butler, who drafted the Act, explained how 'in many counties' the 'men who oppress' black citizens 'preceded their outrages ... by disarming [them], in violation of [their] right[s] as ... citizen[s] to "keep and bear arms,"...'"
"Today, the vast majority of states—at least 43—continue to respect the right of their citizens to carry arms for self-defense. New York is not among them."
"Following a sharp rise in European immigration to cities in the Northeast, states and localities began crafting ways to keep arms out of the hands of immigrants. New York was at the forefront of this new wave of discrimination..."
"According to the New York Times—which itself derided the purported 'affinity of "low-browed foreigners" for handguns'—'[i]n the first three years of the Sullivan Law,' a remarkable '70 percent of those arrested had Italian surnames.'"
"good moral character" huh
"Good, even impeccable, moral character plus a simple desire to exercise a fundamental right is not sufficient. Nor is living or being employed in a 'high crime area.'"
"For example, courts have repeatedly affirmed findings of no 'proper cause' for applicants whose jobs require them to 'carry large amounts of cash in areas "noted for criminal activity."'"
"Courts have also upheld determinations that an applicant lacked 'proper cause' based on nothing more than 'the absence of documentation substantiating threats to petitioner personally.'"
"Moreover, it is common for individuals who have satisfied state officials that they are qualified to possess and carry firearms for other purposes, such as hunting and target shooting, to nonetheless be denied a license to carry a handgun for self-defense."
"That conclusion is compelled by the text, history, and tradition of the Second Amendment, all of which confirm that the right it secures encompasses a right to carry handguns outside the home for self-defense."
"Moreover, the substantial discretion afforded government officials exacerbates the constitutional difficulties and reflects the law’s origins as a mechanism to selectively disarm the people."
"After all, it is 'extremely improbable that the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen.'"
"Indeed, the Second Amendment would have been of little value to the freedman if it did not enshrine a right to both keep and carry arms, as the violence perpetrated against them was by no means confined to their homes."
"That caveat would have been nonsensical if the Second Amendment does not protect the right to carry arms outside the home at all."
"This Court’s opinion in Caetano v. Massachusetts likewise makes sense only on the understanding that the Second Amendment is not a homebound right."
"This Court would not tarry long over a law that reserved First Amendment rights to those with an unusually compelling need to worship or criticize the government, or a law that reserved Fourth Amendment rights to those with an especial need for privacy."
"Simply put, when it comes to fundamental constitutional rights, discretion is a vice, not a virtue. Yet New York leaves it to the practically unreviewable discretion of a licensing officer to decide who may exercise the fundamental right to carry a handgun for self-defense."
"The prospect that the substantial discretion that New York’s Sullivan Law gives to local officials could be used to selectively disarm individuals is far from hypothetical. It is arguably the law’s raison d’etre."
"To be clear, petitioners have not been denied licenses because they are insufficiently trained or trustworthy to carry a firearm... both Nash and Koch have been licensed to carry firearms for purposes less constitutionally and historically central than self-defense."
"...the Second Amendment plainly forecloses New York’s refusal to let petitioners carry handguns for self-defense just because the state is not convinced that they have demonstrated an unusual need to exercise fundamental rights guaranteed to all."
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
NEW: NAGR v. Grisham (D. NM): NOTICE of Hearing on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order: Motion Hearing set for 9/13/2023 at 01:00 PM in Albuquerque - 420 Mimbres Courtroom before District Judge David H. Urias. courtlistener.com/docket/6777918…
Donk v. Grisham (D. NM): NOTICE of Hearing on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order: Motion Hearing set for 9/13/2023 at 01:00 PM in Albuquerque - 420 Mimbres Courtroom before District Judge David H. Urias. courtlistener.com/docket/6777944…
We The Patriots USA v. Grisham (D. NM): NOTICE of Hearing on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order: Motion Hearing set for 9/13/2023 at 01:00 PM in Albuquerque - 420 Mimbres Courtroom before District Judge David H. Urias. courtlistener.com/docket/6777953…
The defendants note that the proposed amended complaint removes the previous claims (that were apparently too insane even for Everytown) and basically changes the entire lawsuit: civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentInquir…
"On cross-examination, he acknowledged that he stuck his phone about six inches (15 centimeters) from Colie's face while the translate app repeated the phrase 'Hey dips---, stop thinking about my sparkle' in English and Spanish." apnews.com/article/youtub…
"Colie backed away from the 6-foot-5 Cook (196 cm), who kept advancing toward Colie even as Colie said 'no' and 'stop' and pushed Cook's arm away. Then, Cook said, when the two were separated by a small distance, Colie pulled out an handgun and shot him in the abdomen."
"Cook said he's been posting pranks online for about a year. He said he was trying to avoid mall security while he filmed the prank on Colie because they had confronted him in the past. A survey of his YouTube channel finds a series of off-putting stunts..."
Wiese v. Bonta (E.D. CA): Ryan Busse's newest declaration in support of gun control is for CA's magazine ban (again). At $150/hr, it's almost identical to yesterday's filing in WA (without the part recommending bolt-action rifles for self-defense). storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
This section was in the Washington filing but not in the California one, probably because most (if not all) of those handguns aren't on the roster:
The committee chair said the choice to make this testimony only was "after extensive conversation with the author" and "to allow time for more stakeholder conversations and to help her get to a better place with the bill": senate.ca.gov/media/senate-t…
A rep from the American Property Casualty Insurance Association is speaking in opposition to the bill, saying it "would require insurance to cover intentional criminal acts."
A rep from the Personal Insurance Federation of California is now speaking in opposition to the bill, saying its not opposed to gun insurance, but it would require coverage for injuries to household members, which would be "unworkable to our companies":
2) They require permits to be submitted and interviews to be conducted during office hours, preventing people who can't take off work from getting them
3) They ban guns on public transportation, preventing people without cars from carrying anywhere past walking distance
4) They require live-fire training, making it difficult for people without nearby ranges to get permits (especially combined with #3)
5) They require multiple non-family references, preventing people with anti-gun friends from getting permits