First Briefs for Woollard

The Supreme Court has ruled twice that the 2nd Amendment protects the right to own guns for self-protection. However, both of their rulings were confined to ownership in the home. Several states have interpreted that to mean that carry outside the home may be curtailed or even prohibited.

We’d hoped for resolution in the lower courts, but they’ve left us with a confusing patchwork of conflicting opinions. We lost when the 2nd Circuit upheld New York’s unworkable permitting scheme in Kachalsky. Although we won on the district court level, we lost in the 4th Circuit in the Woollard case.

Late last year, we scored a win in the 7th Circuit, in which Illinois’ ban on carry was thrown out. Rather than appeal, the state agreed to implement a workable permit system. That leaves us with a split between Circuit courts, which puts pressure on the Supreme Court to take up the issue. As such, the Second Amendment Foundation is bringing Woollard up for certiorari again.

The first two briefs in support have now been published. The first is from the National Rifle Association. It illustrates the perfidy of the lower courts in their efforts to whittle away at the Heller and McDonald decisions, and it’s a good crash course in the mess that’s been made of the matter.

The second brief is authored by David Hardy of Academics for the Second Amendment. It serves as a brief history of restrictions on the right to carry, as well as the fact that discretionary permitting schemes often suffer from cronyism and discrimination.

The use of discretionary licensing inevitably tempts the licensing authorities to act arbitrarily, and out of favoritism. This case presents the Court with an opportunity to decide whether a fundamental right can be subject to licensing which is based on campaign contributions, wedding gifts, or celebrity status.

Amusingly, the ASA brief touches on a 2001 situation in which two members of Aerosmith were gifted New York City carry permits in consideration for concert privileges, despite the fact that actual New York residents who are not drug addicts cannot attain such permits.