Woollard

9 posts

An Unexpected Win

Today, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals delivered a surprising verdict in the case of Peruta v. San Diego [pdf]. California’s requirement that applicants for concealed carry permits prove “good cause” has been ruled unconstitutional.

The district court erred in denying the applicant’s motion for summary judgment on the Second Amendment claim because San Diego County’s “good cause” permitting requirement impermissibly infringes on the Second Amendment right to bear arms in lawful self-defense. [p. 77]

Wow. Nobody really expected that from this court, and I really didn’t expect this from Judge O’Scannlain, who was less than helpful in Nordyke.

Civil Rights

Cert Denied for Woolard

2 comments

The Supreme Court has declined to hear the Woollard case [pdf]. At this point, the only conclusion I can reach is that they’re doing their best to simply avoid the issue. When they turned away the Kachalsky case last term, the common wisdom was that they were going to hear this one instead.

As it is, we’ve got a clear split among the lower courts, so the matter begs for resolution. The 2nd Circuit decision in Kachalsky conflicts with Woollard, with two cases from the Puerto Rico Supreme Court, and with the 7th Circuit’s decision in Moore.

Two things are at issue: whether the right to keep and bear arms is limited to the home, and what level of scrutiny must be applied to regulations of the right. For now, both questions remain unanswered.

The Court is hearing United States v. Castleman, but that case is about a minor semantic issue with Tennessee’s domestic violence law.

Civil Rights

First Briefs for Woollard

1 comment

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.

Continued...

Civil Rights

Kachalsky v. Cacase

1 comment

The Supreme Court’s decisions in Heller and McDonald affirmed an individual right to keep and bear arms. However, those cases only addressed a central issue of keeping guns in the home. Though the Court found the right to self-defense to be “most acute” there, in no way did either decision imply that it ended at the doorstep.

Yet Maryland, New York, New Jersey, and Illinois have all claimed that their arbitrary and burdensome systems of issuing (or rather, refusing to issue) permits to carry a firearm outside the home somehow pass constitutional muster. So, we’ve brought lawsuits. We won in the 7th Circuit, and we won in the 4th Circuit. New York? Not so well.

Last November, the 2nd Circuit ruled that,

Plaintiffs misconstrue the character and scope of the Second Amendment. States have long chosen to regulate the right to bear arms because of the risks posed by its exercise.

Continued...

Civil Rights

Moore v. Madigan

2 comments

This case was a challenge to the constitutionality of Illinois’ complete ban on carrying firearms outside the home. Illinois is the last state to have such a ban, and the 7th Circuit has found it unconstitutional.

Judge Posner’s opinion is here [pdf]. There are three relevant points:

To deny the right to keep and bear arms outside the confines of the home is to divorce it from its purpose of self-defense, and that’s inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s findings in Heller and McDonald.
Rational basis doesn’t fly when it comes to the 2nd Amendment. Illinois needed to make a “strong showing” to justify a ban on carry, and they failed to do so.
Claims that public safety may be adversely affected (the “blood in the streets” argument) are unclear, inconclusive, and have little bearing.

This is a big win, and not just for Illinois. Congratulations are due to the 2nd Amendment Foundation and the Illinois State Rifle Association (ISRA).

Continued...

Civil Rights

Decision in Woollard v. Sheridan

The Maryland District Court has just handed down a decision [pdf] in the Woollard case granting the plaintiff summary judgement. You can catch up on the background here. The meat of the decision is that Maryland’s standard for issuance of carry permits is too strict and arbitrary to pass constitutional muster.

From the opinion:

The Court finds that Maryland’s requirement of a “good and substantial reason” for issuance of a handgun permit is insufficiently tailored to the State’s interest in public safety and crime prevention. The law impermissibly infringes the right to keep and bear arms, guaranteed by the Second Amendment.

Judge Legg maintains that the right to carry outside the home is only covered by intermediate scrutiny, but this is a step forward.

At bottom, this case rests on a simple proposition: If the Government wishes to burden a right guaranteed by the Constitution, it may do so provided that it can show a satisfactory justification and a sufficiently adapted method.

Continued...

Civil Rights Info Dump Ordnance

Sharp Edges and Frayed Nerves

2 comments

The Supreme Court has refused [pdf] to hear United States v. Masciandaro. That leaves Woollard v. Sheridan, which still has decent odds of making it to the calendar.

There’s been some scuttlebutt that the Court would rather hear a “pure” case in which the petitioner isn’t someone appealing a criminal conviction. Both the Heller and McDonald cases fit this bill, as they were brought by law-abiding citizens appealing unjust laws. In such cases, the Court can address a constitutional issue directly, without having other logistical issues getting in the way. Woollard is a compelling case that gives them that opportunity.

In happier news, that’s the CZ P-01 with a Ka-Bar pistol bayonet at the top. Sure, CZ made one a few years back, but this one is lighter, and it has a really good blade. I don’t know why the world needs more of these, but hey: it looks cool.

Continued...

Civil Rights

A Right Deferred

2 comments

The Supreme Court has chosen not to hear Williams v. Maryland this term. Are we screwed, then?

The implications aren’t encouraging. The first is that we couldn’t get four Justices to take an interest. The second is that there might have been four, but they didn’t think they could convince a fifth to their side. A loss at the Supreme Court level would essentially end the reach of the 2nd Amendment at the doorstep of one’s home.

While Williams was our best overall case, we’ve still got Masciandaro and Woollard awaiting review. However, their chances aren’t looking too bright at the moment, either.

That leaves constitutional protection of the right to carry in a precarious position, with three 4th Circuit decisions implying that there isn’t such a right. I worry that those might be taken as precedents in future litigation.

Civil Rights

Woollard v. Sheridan et Alii

1 comment

The 2nd Amendment Foundation is spearheading a lawsuit [pdf] to challenge Maryland’s rigid scheme on the issuance of concealed carry permits. In short, a civilian seeking a permit for “personal protection” must show “documented evidence of recent threats, robberies, and/or assaults, supported by official police reports or notarized statements from witnesses.”

Plaintiff Raymond Woollard should therefore meet the criteria. According to the complaint, his home was broken into on Christmas Eve, 2002. Woollard was beaten by the intruder, and it took police over two hours to respond to his wife’s 911 call. His assailant was sentenced to probation at first, then imprisoned after assaulting a police officer.

Upon the assailant’s release only three years later, Mr. Woollard was issued a permit. In 2009, his renewal was denied by the defendants, who cited a lack of evidence to “support apprehended fear (i.e. – copies of police reports for assaults, threats, harassments, stalking).”

Continued...