The Second Amendment Foundation has announced its' next move

[pbwalker]

http://www.saf.org/viewpr-new.asp?id=329

SAF SUES TO OVERTURN NORTH CAROLINA’S 'EMERGENCY POWERS' GUN BANS

For Immediate Release: 6/29/2010

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation on Monday filed a federal lawsuit in North Carolina, seeking a permanent injunction against the governor, local officials and local governments from declaring states of emergency under which private citizens are prohibited from exercising their right to bear arms.

Joining SAF in this lawsuit are Grass Roots North Carolina – the state’s leading gun rights organization, and three private citizens, Michael Bateman, Virgil Green and Forrest Minges, Jr. Named as defendants in the federal lawsuit are North Carolina Gov. Beverly Perdue; Reuben Young, secretary of the Department of Crime Control and Public Safety; Stokes County and the City of King. The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina.

The lawsuit contends that state statutes that forbid the carrying of firearms and ammunition during declared states of emergency are unconstitutional. Plaintiffs also contend that a North Carolina law that allows government officials to prohibit the purchase, sale and possession of firearms and ammunition are also unconstitutional because they forbid the exercise of Second Amendment rights as affirmed by Monday’s Supreme Court ruling in McDonald v. City of Chicago, the landmark Second Amendment ruling that incorporated the Second Amendment to the states.

SAF and the Illinois State Rifle Association took the McDonald Case to the Supreme Court.

“Through this lawsuit in North Carolina,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb,” we intend to show that state emergency powers statutes that allow government officials to suspend fundamental civil rights, including the right to bear arms, are unconstitutional and therefore should be nullified. Citizens do not surrender their civil rights just because of a natural or man-made disaster.”

SAF is once again being represented by attorney Alan Gura, who led the legal effort in the McDonald case and also won the historic Heller ruling that overturned the District of Columbia handgun ban in 2008. Local counsel are Andrew Tripp and Kearns Davis with the firm of Brooks, Pierce, McLendon, Humphrey & Leonard, LLC in Raleigh.

The Second Amendment Foundation (http://www.saf.org" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;) is the nation's oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control. SAF has previously funded successful firearms-related suits against the cities of Los Angeles; New Haven, CT; and San Francisco on behalf of American gun owners, a lawsuit against the cities suing gun makers and an amicus brief and fund for the Emerson case holding the Second Amendment as an individual right.

[Pinkycatcher]

I hope Alan Gura becomes one of the wealthiest attorneys in America for his work

[surprise_i'm_armed]

It's encouraging to see this kind of lawsuit filed,
in order that it be litigated during a peaceful time,
instead of after some Katrina-like event.

I found it rather ironic that the State of Hawaii just
passed a law that says that citizens can't
be disarmed by the LEO's during emergency conditions.
Their legislature got off the dime and passed this long-
proposed legislation after a recent tsunami scare.

But contrast that with the Honolulu PD Chief (who has
police oversight of ALL Hawaiian territory) who testified
that in a 15 year period (1991-2006), his department had
granted ZERO CHL's to Hawaiian citizens. Sheesh.

SIA

[Charles L. Cotton]

I hope Alan Gura becomes one of the wealthiest attorneys in America for his work

Perhaps you should rethink this. Heller and McDonand were won in spite of Gura, not because of him. Here is a link to a thread about the history of the Heller decision. I put a compete history on the first page of the thread.

Virtually the entire thrust of Gura's position in McDonand focused on the Privileges or Immunities Clause that lost 8 to 1. It has been rejected by the Supreme Court for 130 years. He fought hard to keep the NRA from getting time during oral arguments, but thank God the Court granted our motion for oral argument time. Gura was blasted during oral arguments and was pounded with questions showing the Court was utterly opposed to the P&I position. But when Paul Clement argued for the NRA, the Court listened intently and asked virtually no questions. Had the NRA not been involved, Gura would have based his entire case on the P&I Clause and he would have lost. Only reluctantly did he also assert the Due Process Clause and then only because he couldn't keep the NRA out.

Remember, prior to Heller, Alan Gura had never handled a single appellate case in state or federal court. No, not one.

As in Heller, the NRA's briefing carried the day.

Chas.

[baldeagle]

OK. I am not a lawyer, Charles, but even I can see that Gura volunteered!! the stuff about machine guns during oral arguments in Heller. That is stunningly brain dead. You NEVER give your opponents ammunition to use against you. Why is this bozo thought to be such a brilliant attorney on the 2A? Good lord! Even a non-lawyer can see he's an idiot. The Justices must be rolling their eyes and banging their heads when he speaks!!

[Liberty]

I hope Alan Gura becomes one of the wealthiest attorneys in America for his work

Perhaps you should rethink this. Heller and McDonand were won in spite of Gura, not because of him. Here is a link to a thread about the history of the Heller decision. I put a compete history on the first page of the thread.

Virtually the entire thrust of Gura's position in McDonand focused on the Privileges or Immunities Clause that lost 8 to 1. It has been rejected by the Supreme Court for 130 years. He fought hard to keep the NRA from getting time during oral arguments, but thank God the Court granted our motion for oral argument time. Gura was blasted during oral arguments and was pounded with questions showing the Court was utterly opposed to the P&I position. But when Paul Clement argued for the NRA, the Court listened intently and asked virtually no questions. Had the NRA not been involved, Gura would have based his entire case on the P&I Clause and he would have lost. Only reluctantly did he also assert the Due Process Clause and then only because he couldn't keep the NRA out.

Remember, prior to Heller, Alan Gura had never handled a single appellate case in state or federal court. No, not one.

As in Heller, the NRA's briefing carried the day.

Chas.

I think its fair to say that if it were left to the NRA these cases would never have been heard by the court. The NRA wasn't in the forefront to get either of these cases heard.

[Charles L. Cotton]

I hope Alan Gura becomes one of the wealthiest attorneys in America for his work

Perhaps you should rethink this. Heller and McDonand were won in spite of Gura, not because of him. Here is a link to a thread about the history of the Heller decision. I put a compete history on the first page of the thread.

Virtually the entire thrust of Gura's position in McDonand focused on the Privileges or Immunities Clause that lost 8 to 1. It has been rejected by the Supreme Court for 130 years. He fought hard to keep the NRA from getting time during oral arguments, but thank God the Court granted our motion for oral argument time. Gura was blasted during oral arguments and was pounded with questions showing the Court was utterly opposed to the P&I position. But when Paul Clement argued for the NRA, the Court listened intently and asked virtually no questions. Had the NRA not been involved, Gura would have based his entire case on the P&I Clause and he would have lost. Only reluctantly did he also assert the Due Process Clause and then only because he couldn't keep the NRA out.

Remember, prior to Heller, Alan Gura had never handled a single appellate case in state or federal court. No, not one.

As in Heller, the NRA's briefing carried the day.

Chas.

I think its fair to say that if it were left to the NRA these cases would never have been heard by the court. The NRA wasn't in the forefront to get either of these cases heard.

The NRA was going to file suit if and when one of the "collective rights" Justices left the Supreme Court and were replaced with an "individual rights" Justice. As for the NRA not being in the forefront of Heller being heard, you're right. As I set out in detail in the post referenced above, Gura filed Parker (later to become Heller) when O'Conner was on the Court and it was a hands down loser. As for McDonald, you're mistaken. Reckless Gura simply filed suit before the NRA and he did it expressly to "beat the NRA to the courthouse." The NRA filed shortly thereafter and this is why the NRA was granted time during oral argument.

Gura started a reckless adventure at a time when his loss was guaranteed and the NRA saved the Second Amendment.

Chas.

[Liberty]

[quote = "Liberty"]I think its fair to say that if it were left to the NRA these cases would never have been heard by the court. The NRA wasn't in the forefront to get either of these cases heard.

The NRA was going to file suit if and when one of the "collective rights" Justices left the Supreme Court and were replaced with an "individual rights" Justice. As for the NRA not being in the forefront of Heller being heard, you're right. As I set out in detail in the post referenced above, Gura filed Parker (later to become Heller) when O'Conner was on the Court and it was a hands down loser. As for McDonald, you're mistaken. Reckless Gura simply filed suit before the NRA and he did it expressly to "beat the NRA to the courthouse." The NRA filed shortly thereafter and this is why the NRA was granted time during oral argument.

Gura started a reckless adventure at a time when his loss was guaranteed and the NRA saved the Second Amendment.

Chas.[/quote]
So far its worked out well.

We can not discount the fact the facts that in the Mac Donald Case the NRA input has been invaluable.
Not be be argumentative, but on this weekend we are reminded that if it weren't for the impatient and the reckless we would still be paying taxes and tribute to the Queen of England.

On a personal level, my experience has taught me that the impulsive usually are the winners and the cautious planners usually miss the boat on opportunities.. I can't say this carries over to the courtroom, but it explains why my sympathies lie where they do. I don't wait around thinking about my next move anymore. I just do it. I wish the NRA were a bit more impatient, even if others find such patience virtuous.

[Cobra Medic]

Why is this bozo thought to be such a brilliant attorney on the 2A? Good lord! Even a non-lawyer can see he's an idiot. The Justices must be rolling their eyes and banging their heads when he speaks!!

I'll take an idiot who succeeds any day over some rocket surgeon who fails.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Why is this bozo thought to be such a brilliant attorney on the 2A? Good lord! Even a non-lawyer can see he's an idiot. The Justices must be rolling their eyes and banging their heads when he speaks!!

I'll take an idiot who succeeds any day over some rocket surgeon who fails.

The idiot didn't succeed; the rocket scientist (NRA) saved the Second Amendment.

Chas.

[suthdj]

Why is this bozo thought to be such a brilliant attorney on the 2A? Good lord! Even a non-lawyer can see he's an idiot. The Justices must be rolling their eyes and banging their heads when he speaks!!

I'll take an idiot who succeeds any day over some rocket surgeon who fails.

The idiot didn't succeed; the rocket scientist (NRA) saved the Second Amendment.

Chas.

So if the NRA did not get a chance to speak and this guy lost his case would the NRA still be able to file or would it be considered a done deal?

[Cobra Medic]

Twice in a row? What a coincidence!

[Charles L. Cotton]

Why is this bozo thought to be such a brilliant attorney on the 2A? Good lord! Even a non-lawyer can see he's an idiot. The Justices must be rolling their eyes and banging their heads when he speaks!!

I'll take an idiot who succeeds any day over some rocket surgeon who fails.

The idiot didn't succeed; the rocket scientist (NRA) saved the Second Amendment.

Chas.

So if the NRA did not get a chance to speak and this guy lost his case would the NRA still be able to file or would it be considered a done deal?

We had a case pending, but the appeal would have been dismissed as moot since the McDonald case would have been decided. The same thing would have happened with Heller. You can always ask the Court to reverse itself, but that's very rare until/unless the makeup of the Court changes. That's why these two 5/4 decisions are worrisome; Justice Kennedy could leave the Court during Obama's administration. We really need to see the Republicans take control of the Senate again so Obama nominations to the Court can be blocked.

Chas.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Twice in a row? What a coincidence!

You obviously haven't read the history of either case or you wouldn't say that.

Chas.

[suthdj]

Why is this bozo thought to be such a brilliant attorney on the 2A? Good lord! Even a non-lawyer can see he's an idiot. The Justices must be rolling their eyes and banging their heads when he speaks!!

I'll take an idiot who succeeds any day over some rocket surgeon who fails.

The idiot didn't succeed; the rocket scientist (NRA) saved the Second Amendment.

Chas.

So if the NRA did not get a chance to speak and this guy lost his case would the NRA still be able to file or would it be considered a done deal?

We had a case pending, but the appeal would have been dismissed as moot since the McDonald case would have been decided. The same thing would have happened with Heller. You can always ask the Court to reverse itself, but that's very rare until/unless the makeup of the Court changes. That's why these two 5/4 decisions are worrisome; Justice Kennedy could leave the Court during Obama's administration. We really need to see the Republicans take control of the Senate again so Obama nominations to the Court can be blocked.

Chas.

So basically he is potentially doing more harm then good?