AmmoLand.com

California Rifle and Pistol Association

Sacramento, CA --(Ammoland.com)-On January 17, 2012, the Supreme Court of the United States declined to accept and review People v. Delacy, 192 Cal. App. 4th 1481 (2011), review denied (June 8, 2011), cert. denied, No. 11-290, 2012 WL 117549 (U.S. Jan. 17, 2012).

In his Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, lawyers with the Michel & Associates law firm representing Mr. Delacy asked the Supreme Court to decide whether language from its 2008 opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) concerning “presumptively lawful” restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms allowed courts to simply hold restrictions on the Second Amendment rights of those with certain misdemeanor convictions to be constitutional without being subjected to any level of heightened judicial scrutiny. The Delacy case also touched on what level of judicial scrutiny should apply to an Equal Protection challenge asserting the government is creating discriminatory classifications that deprive those so classified of their Second Amendment rights.

Even though the Supreme Court requested a response to the Delacy petition from the government in October 2011 - an unusual move that shows the high court had unusual interest in the case - Delacy ended up being another in a line of recent Second Amendment-related cases which the Supreme Court declined to accept for review.

Certiorari was also denied on the same day in Lowery v. United States, No. 06-CM-1195, 2010 WL 3501574 (D.C. Sept. 9, 2010), cert. denied, 11-5241, 2012 WL 117590 (U.S. Jan. 17, 2012). The Lowery case sought review of whether the right to keep and bear arms as set forth in Heller applied retroactively to a person who was convicted of possessing a handgun in violation of the very restriction struck down as unconstitutional in Heller.

Other Second Amendment-related cases recently denied review by the Court include Williams v. Maryland, U.S. v. Masciandaro, and Winters v. Willis.

Williams v. State (Maryland), 417 Md. 479 (2011), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 93 (U.S. Oct. 3, 2011) asked the Supreme Court to decide whether the Second Amendment protects a right to carry or transport a registered handgun outside the home, the enjoyment of which cannot be conditional on first applying for a permit to do so that is practically unobtainable. Mr. Williams was appealing his conviction for possessing a handgun in public without the required state permit allowing him to do so.

United States v. Masciandaro, 638 F.3d 458 (4th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, No. 10-11212, 2011 WL 2516854 (U.S. Nov. 28, 2011) involved a man convicted of violating the federal prohibition on carrying or possessing a loaded weapon in vehicles in National Parks after he was found asleep in his vehicle with a loaded handgun in a national parks. He sought review from the Supreme Court of whether that prohibition violates the Second Amendment right to bear arms; asking the high court, like the petitioner in Williams, whether the right extends beyond the home.

Willis v. Winters, 350 Or. 299 (2011) cert. denied, 11-120, 2012 WL 33296 (U.S. Jan. 9, 2012) involved a group of Oregon sheriffs asking the Supreme Court to clarify whether they can disregard an Oregon State Supreme Court decision requiring them to issue licenses to carry firearms to medical marijuana patients, which would arguably make them violate federal law. One question that would potentially had to have been resolved - like several other cases seeking review from the Supreme Court - was whether there is a right to carry firearms outside the home for self-defense. This case also could have potentially had a wide-reaching effect regarding who is considered an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance, which is a disqualifier for firearm possession under federal law.

Despite the number of certiorari denials in Second Amendment cases, the fact that the Supreme Court has been requesting responses in many of these cases shows the Justices are paying unusually close attention to the Second Amendment issue. Of the roughly 8000 petitions for review filed with the Supreme Court every year, the Court only requests a response from the opposing party in a few hundred. When the Court requests a response brief, it is a strong sign that the Court is interested in hearing argument in a case. Such a request increases the probability that the Court will grant oral argument by roughly 9 times, from 0.9% to 8.6%.

The fact that the Supreme Court requested a response in all these cases does not mean the Court thinks the cases were decided correctly. It more likely suggests that the Court is interested in further clarifying the scope of Second Amendment rights after Heller and McDonald, but is searching for the right case vehicle to do it in.

Perhaps one of the two remaining Second Amendment cases pending before the Court that we are aware of (United States v. Portillo-Munoz, 643 F.3d 437 (5th Cir. 2011), petition for cert. filed, No. 11-7200 (Nov. 2, 2011) (a challenge to federal law prohibiting gun possession by illegal aliens) or United States v. Booker, 644 F.3d 12 (1st Cir. 2011), petition for cert. filed, No. 11-6765 (Oct. 3, 2011)(a challenge to federal law prohibiting gun possession by persons convicted of domestic violence)) will become the vehicle that settles some of the issues that remain outstanding in the wake of the Heller ruling.

Seventeen years ago the NRA and CRPA joined forces to fight local gun bans being written and pushed in California by the gun ban lobby. Their coordinated efforts became the NRA/CRPA “Local Ordinance Project” (LOP) – a statewide campaign to fight ill-conceived local efforts at gun control and educate politicians about available programs that are effective in reducing accidents and violence without infringing on the rights of law-abiding gun owners. The NRA/CRPA LOP has had tremendous success in beating back most of these anti-self-defense proposals.

About:
In addition to fighting local gun bans, for decades the NRA has been litigating dozens of cases in California courts to promote the right to self-defense and the Second Amendment. In the post Heller and McDonald legal environment, NRA and CRPA Foundation have formed the NRA/CRPA Foundation Legal Action Project (LAP), a joint venture to pro-actively strike down ill-conceived gun control laws and ordinances and advance the rights of firearms owners, specifically in California. Sometimes, success is more likely when LAP’s litigation efforts are kept low profile, so the details of every lawsuit are not always released. To see a partial list of the LAP’s recent accomplishments, or to contribute to the NRA or to the NRA/CRPAF LAP and support this and similar Second Amendment cases, visit www.nraila.com and www.crpafoundation.org.

Filed under: Gun Rights News by Ammoland 3 Comments »

Gun Owners of America

Washington, DC --(Ammoland.com)- The Supreme Court yesterday unanimously sided with Gun Owners of America in finding that the placement of a Global Positioning Device on an automobile constitutes a “search” for purposes of the Fourth Amendment.

The majority opinion in U.S. v. Jones was written by Justice Antonin Scalia and follows GOA’s reasoning to throw out the “reasonable expectation of privacy” test which has been thought to be the dominant Fourth Amendment standard in recent years.

The Obama Administration argued that because the police could theoretically follow Antoine Jones’ car, he had no “reasonable expectation of privacy,” and thus, placing a GPS device on his car was justified. GOA argued, however, that this constituted an “unreasonable search and seizure” which violates the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution.

This decision will have dramatic ramifications for gun owners. Indeed, the Court looked to the Founders’ intentions with respect to the Fourth Amendment, which, until the latter part of the 20th Century, was understood to restrict the ability of police to “trespass” upon the persons or property of Americans.

“This is no less than a fundamental transformation of American jurisprudence concerning searches and seizures,” according to GOA’s Executive Director Larry Pratt. “And it is a transformation which throws out fake modern jurisprudence and restores the Founders’ intent.”

The “reasonable expectation of privacy” test flowed from a Justice Harlan concurring opinion in Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967). Gun Owners of America had argued that the Supreme Court should jettison that decision by an activist court, and a majority of the justices agreed.

“The ‘expectation of privacy’ test for searches and seizures arose without support in the text or historical context of the Fourth Amendment, and has proven wholly inadequate to protect the American people from their government,” argued GOA.

Four members of the court – led by Samuel Alito, and joined by Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Elena Kagan – argued for the continuation of the “reasonable expectation of privacy test,” but concluded that planting a GPS device on a car for 28 days constituted a Fourth Amendment “search” under that standard as well.

The Obama administration, which had argued that planting a GPS device on a car was not a “search” under the Harlan standard, was unanimously repudiated by the High Court. And the case is being cited by the mainstream media as a defeat for Obama and his Justice Department, which is led by Attorney General Eric Holder.

Said Pratt: “This is yet another failure by Eric Holder, the most corrupt and incompetent Attorney General in the history of the Republic.”

Gun Owners would like to thank its activists for their support. Your contributions helps GOA to assist in future cases like this at the Supreme Court.

About:
Gun Owners of America (GOA) is a non-profit lobbying organization formed in 1975 to preserve and defend the Second Amendment rights of gun owners. GOA sees firearms ownership as a freedom issue. `The only no comprise gun lobby in Washington’ – Ron Paul

Filed under: Gun Rights News by Ammoland 1 Comment »