A Cavalcade of Court Wins For the 2nd Amendment This Past Week

In the past 8 days or so, a number of victories both big and small have popped up in courts all over the North East.

In Rhode Island, the strict “May Issue” stance of the issuing authorities of concealed carry weapons permits was struck down by the Rhode Island Supreme Court.  The ruling was in favor of Norman Gadomski against the Police Chief of East Providence, Joseph Tavares.  To wit:

Nonetheless, in Mosby, 851 A.2d at 1050, we proclaimed that “[a]s a matter of policy, this Court will not countenance any system of permitting under the Firearms Act that would be committed to the unfettered discretion of an executive agency.” Indeed, we noted that any rights flowing from article 1, section 22 of the Rhode Island Constitution[2] would be “illusory, of course, if [they] could be abrogated entirely on the basis of an unreviewable unrestricted licensing scheme.” Mosby, 851 A.2d at 1050.

To prevent such an occurrence, we opined that “certain procedural steps must be employed to allow a meaningful review” of licensing decisions by this Court. Id. at 1051. Specifically, we held that, under § 11-47-18, “[a] rejected applicant is entitled to know the evidence upon which the department based its decision and the rationale for the denial.” Mosby, 851 A.2d at 1051. It follows a fortiori that a rejected applicant under § 11-47-11 is also entitled to such information.

The “rationale” for rejecting a application for a CCW permit must now be based in actual evidence and not the whims of a would be potentate like Tavares.  Who, over the past decade has not issued a SINGLE CCW to the good people of East Providence.

In New Jersey, a state that goes out of its way to deny and crucify people who want to legally carrying or own a firearm, the New Jersey Appellate Division has quashed an added hurdle that some municipalities had used to infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms.

“There shall be no conditions or requirements added to the form or content of the application, or required by the licensing authority for the issuance of a permit or identification card, other than those that are specifically set forth in this chapter.” (N.J.S. 2C:58-3f.)

Basically, this means that local gun hating authorities can not bury applicants with rote tonnage of paperwork in order to acceptably complete their application.  True, it’s hard enough to exercise your 2nd Amendment rights in NJ but at least this takes one little hurdle out of the equation.

In Washington, DC, echoing the decision by Rhode Island, the District Court Judge smacked down the “good cause” requirement for issuing a firearm permit.  In Wrenn v DC the court ruled thus:

Even if the Court were to accept the proposition that handguns are used disproportionately in the commission of violent crimes, how is that use related to whether or not a person has a greater need for self-protection? Moreover, isn’t it possible that even persons who cannot manifest a present need for self-protection are just as likely to be victims of a violent crime. Simply put, the District of Columbia’s “good reason”/”proper reason” requirement will neither make  it less likely that those who meet this requirement will present a risk to other members of the public or commit violent crimes than those who cannot meet this requirement.

Therefore, after reviewing the record in this case, the Court finds that Defendants have failed to demonstrate that there is any relationship, let alone a tight fit, between reducing the risk to other members of the public and/or violent crime and the District of Columbia’s “good reason”/”proper reason” requirement.

That is one of the best decisions using logic that I have ever read.  And as we all know, logic is the gun controllers natural enemy.

Finally, in New York, while not so much of a positive 2nd Amendment ruling as it is a ruling exposing the embarrassment of gun controllers at the failure of the SAFE Act, a State Supreme Court Justice in Albany has ordered the State Police to release data regarding the registration of newly defined assault weapons as required by the SAFE Act.

The gun controllers who support the SAFE Act have been going out of their way to squash the freedom of information request that was initially filed in January of 2014.  The FOIL (freedom of information law) request asked for the barest data metrics from the SAFE Act.  How many so called “assault weapons” were registered and in what region of the state.  The State Police stated they would reply in 20 days.  In DECEMBER of 2014 they denied the request stating that the SAFE Act.

The only reason for a denial is that they are utterly embarrassed by the outright refusal of freedom loving New Yorkers and the Sherrif’s they have elected from moving forward at all with this unconstitutional and tyrannical sham.

Justice McNamara agreed stating:

“By the agency’s own admission the records sought were neither assembled nor collected for ‘inclusion’ in the database but rather were ‘derived’ from records in the database.  Consequently, the exemption asserted by the agency does not apply to the records sought by petitioner and … the records should be provided.”

I for one am looking to see how much of the state of New York rejects the SAFE Act.  Once a light is shined under the rock that Gov Cuomo has been trying to hide under, I will be interested to see his reaction.

All in all, a good week for guns in the courts.


Send this to friend