At what point does a civil right become a highly-regulated privilege?
That question may be answered by a brand new lawsuit filed Thursday in federal district court in New York by the Bellevue, WA-based Second Amendment Foundation. It was their lawsuit – McDonald v. City of Chicago – that recently prevailed in the U.S. Supreme Court to incorporate the Second Amendment to the states. That is, the right to keep and bear arms protected by the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights now applies as a limit on state and local governments as it does on Congress.
Our civil rights, including the right to keep and bear arms, should not be subject to the whims of a local government or its employees, just because they don’t think someone ‘needs’ a carry permit."--Alan Gottlieb
Legal actions like this are putting SAF's Bellevue offices squarely on a map that has long been dominated by the Virginia-based National Rifle Association, considered the "800-pound gorilla of gun politics" in this country. The recent Supreme Court ruling has greatly heightened SAF founder Alan Gottlieb's public profile.
The lawsuit involves two New York residents, Alan Kachalsky and Christina Nikolov, both of whom have had their handgun permit applications denied by handgun permit licensing officers in Westchester County. According to court documents, both plaintiffs were turned down because they could not “demonstrate a need” for self-protection. This pattern suggests that in the Empire State, proactive personal protection is not recognized as being sufficient to justify the carrying of a handgun.
American citizens like Alan Kachalsky and Christina Nikolov should not have to demonstrate good cause in order to exercise a constitutionally-protected civil right.”—Alan Gottlieb.
The concept of proving “good cause” to obtain a handgun carry permit is unthinkable anywhere west of the Mississippi River, and certainly here in Washington State, where we have one of the earliest “shall issue” statutes in the nation. The right to carry has been part of the Evergreen State fabric since Washington was a territory, and the right of individual citizens to bear arms is specified in the state constitution.
Carpetbagger gun prohibitionists who have moved here from New York and elsewhere that the government thinks citizens should be disarmed would like to change Washington law. Here’s a better idea: Buy a road map or a bus ticket and go home.
As the Yuma Sun newspaper recently editorialized, “A right that is so restricted that it cannot be easily exercised is no right at all.” The Supreme Court last month reaffirmed that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual civil right for all citizens everywhere, but New York authorities continue regulating it as though it were a government-bestowed privilege.
This is the second major lawsuit filed by SAF since its Supreme Court victory. From now on, such legal actions will be primarily focused on where the lines are drawn in terms of “reasonable regulation” and how that is defined. In North Carolina, SAF is challenging the state’s emergency powers act, as noted in yesterday’s column. Washington, as also explained yesterday, has a similar provision that allows the governor to prohibit the carrying or transport of firearms outside the home or business in a declared emergency.
In response to an inquiry in the reader feedback section of that column, the way Washington could head off a similar lawsuit – there is no indication from SAF that such a lawsuit is in the works – would be to amend the statute and remove that prohibition. Having discussed this over the years with various people in local law enforcement, such a ban wouldn’t likely be enforced, though it might be used to charge some bonehead who misbehaved with a gun during an emergency situation.
Guns and gun sentiment in the news
We could not pass this up: According to the on-line Seattle Post-Intelligencer, a 24-year-old man identified as Cory Ricardo Castillon is now facing charges relating to a July 9 incident in which he allegedly fired several shots from a pistol on Capitol Hill. This resulted in a stand-off, a SWAT call-out and a lot of public attention the suspect may regret.
Of course this will come as a b-i-g shock, but it appears alcohol may have been involved because Castillon allegedly told police he had been drinking. Who’d a thunk it? Evidently, this guy never read my book, Washington State Gun Rights and Responsibilities, but this column is confident that a judge is about to acquaint him with at least the responsibilities part.
Castillon allegedly gave a statement admitting to drinking in his apartment and firing his pistol into the air.—Seattle Post-Intelligencer
The other day, a story regarding the curious case of a rather mysterious alleged gun runner identified as Iranian native Hamid Malekpour, also known as Oliver King appeared. It was reported that authorities seized a bunch of guns from this guy’s car and a Ferndale storage unit. This includes Steyr, Colt and LWRC rifles, several Glock handguns, and a bunch of ammunition.
In the report one of these guns was identified as a “.50-caliber sniper rifle” and other guns were described as “semi-automatic assault rifles.” More than one reader took those descriptions to task in the feedback section, and properly so. The term “.50-caliber sniper rifle” is an invention by the gun prohibition lobby. There are lots of .50-caliber long range rifles out there, and some are used by military snipers, but the guns were never designed for that specific purpose.
Simply because a rifle shoots far and has a telescopic sight does not make it a “sniper rifle.”
…investigators seized 27 firearms, including a .50 cal. sniper rifle and several semi-automatic assault rifles.—Seattle Post-Intelligencer
In that same vein, there is no such thing as a “semi-automatic assault rifle.” A true assault rifle is a selective-fire weapon that can be fired in either full-auto or semi-auto modes. What far too many people – cops included – call “assault rifles” are actually semiautomatic look-alikes. Many were on the Clinton-era “assault weapons ban” list, and as one reporter explained to me, “most folks think of AR-15-type rifles as assault rifles.”
My reply was that there was a time when most people thought the world was flat. Didn’t make them right.
And finally, this tidbit from an Op-Ed piece written by Dr. Craig R. Smith, director of the Center for First Amendment Studies at Cal State in Long Beach, CA. He laments – as do so many in academia – that the Supreme Court is dead wrong on the meaning of the Second Amendment. This guy evidently does not understand as much as he thinks he does about the Bill of Rights and the individual liberties it was designed to protect, but you be the judge (and comment below). It is astonishing that anyone who teaches about the First Amendment would be so ready to dismis the Second Amendment as something less than protective of an individual right.
The fact is the Second Amendment was added to the Constitution to strengthen the states’ right to form a militia by empowering their citizens to bear arms under special circumstances. It was not written to give citizens the right to own guns in all circumstances.—Dr. Craig R. Smith
His concluding paragraph, however, underscores what gun rights advocates fear, and why many leading activists, such as former NRA President Sandra Froman, have stressed about the importance of electing presidents and senators who will nominate and confirm judges and Supreme Court justices who read the Constitution as it is supposed to be read.
In writing about the recent Chicago ruling, he declares hope that the court’s 5-4 conservative/moderate majority will soon lose a vote so that the far left liberal minority becomes the majority and overturns the Chicago decision.
Our only hope is to realize that five to four rulings are weak and can be overturned when one judge changes his or her mind, or when a judge retires that voted on the prevailing side and is replaced by one favoring the other side. Hopefully, the Supreme Court will come to its collective senses soon and undo this terrible decision.”—Dr. Craig R. Smith
PLEASE FORWARD the link to this column and share with all of your chat lists and forums
More from Gun Rights Examiners
Atlanta Ed Stone | Austin Howard Nemerov | Boston Ron Bokleman | Charlotte Paul Valone | Cheyenne Anthony Bouchard | Chicago Don Gwinn | Cleveland Daniel White | DC Mike Stollenwerk | Denver Dan Bidstrup | Des Moines Sean McClanahan |Detroit Rob Reed | Fort Smith Steve D. Jones | Knoxville Liston Matthews | Los Angeles John Longenecker | Minneapolis John Pierce | National David Codrea | Seattle Dave Workman | St. Louis Kurt Hofmann | Tucson Chris Woodard
And Don’t forget to visit:
Comments
The fact is that there are a number of case law decisions holding that any government agency or official requiring a citizen to obtain any sort of PERMIT to excercise a constitutional right is itself unconstitutional.The courts have already ruled that issuance of permits can be and has been used by officials to hinder constitutionally guarateed freedoms,and that constitutional rights cannot be issued or restricted at the whim of some government agency or official regarding freedom of speech and religeon. Therefor, I womder why no one has seen fit to challenge LEGALITY of the issuance of ALL right to carry permits! The right to bear (carry) arms is guaranteed by the Constitution and "shall NOT be infringed" (restricted or denied).Your article proves the truth of what the courts have already decided regarding permits. When will people get that ALL government mandated restrictions on the Second Amendment rights, NO MATTER HOW "REASONABLE" THEY SEEM, are UNCONSTITUTIONAL ? !!
I am real happy about the recent High Court Decisions that favored the Second Amendment.
It is long overdue, but it does not get us out of the woods altogether, we have to get to the point where Gun Laws on the books currently are considered unconstitutional and removed.
I am fully aware that some will start saying things like RPG's, Grenades, And such other military weapons should they not also be allowed, this is not the Question to be asked. The question to be asked is, should we as Citizens have the GOD Given right to protect our lives and the lives of our families any where we might be from a Criminal Element of our society, there is no answer to that, except absolutely.
Dr. Craig is a perfect example of all those acadamecians who can neither read or think. They are allowed to proceed through the universities of colleges of this nation because of "Attitudinal Acceptability". It is obvious that they did not acquire credentials through their intellectual endeavors.
These are the "team players" who have no soul of their own, but will say or do whatever is necessary to be "on the team". 1930's Germany was full of these types. Now it appears we are.
Dr. Craig Smith is just another in a long line idiots who say the 2nd only protects the right to be armed while serving in the military. Does this mean that rather being made a rear eschilon secretary I can demand to be issued a rifle, pistol or shotgun and be stationed on the front lines? It is a ridiculous position when the truth of what is says is ferreted out.
As to his last paragraph; While many in the antigun community hope for such nonsense, what is ignored is just what would such a case look like, because for a reversal to be enacted, a case to support such a positon must be brought. The court can't be loaded with anti's then they decide to one day review the decisions they don't like and overturn them. Even as plainly worded as the 14th is, it has taken 140 years for the 2nd to be incorporated against the states.
Perhaps Dr. Craig R Smith should consider what his First Amendment rights would be like if subjected to the same controls as the Second Amendment; particularly since the pen is mightier than the sword! First, he must convince a someone in power that he has a compelling need to speak; second, he must attend 50 hours of training, at his own expense, to ensure he knows all of the correct words to use or not to use; third, must pass a competency test to receive his speaking license (which he must renew every 3 years); fourth, he can buy only state certified writing equipment which has passed specific safety standards; fifth, he can only speak in approved areas, on approved topics, to approved audiences. And last but not least, if it is found that his words offend, defame or otherwise cause harm to another, he will be jailed and fined. After all, this is only reasonable!
The Kansas State of Disaster Emergency Statue [K.S.A. § 48-925] used to read:
"(8) suspend or limit the sale, dispensing or transportation of alcoholic beverages, firearms, explosives and combustibles;"
Following the seizure of firearms in the aftermath of the Greensburg tornado, Kansas House Bill No. 2811 struck the word - firearms - from the statue.
A Goggle search of '5/08 Greensburg Gun Confiscations' will provide a detailed report of the incident.
Kudos to SAF, on their lawsuit in New York State. I hope the plaintiffs win big. No one should ever have to show cause to exercise a constitutional right.
I'm surprised that North Carolina would even consider seizing guns, simply because the temperature may drop. I always thought North Carolina was a gun-friendly state.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!