Suffolk Alliance of Sportsmen Inc.
The Voice of Suffolk County Sportsmen and Sportswomen
EYEWITNESS REPORT
Mar. 2, 2010[Out of D.C. and now on a ranch in Texas; didn’t have time to get this report out before catching my flight; this is only partial, will need details and fill in many blanks, that will have to come later, better to get the basics out now, thanks for understanding.]
This case was way more complicated than Heller.
Both attorneys faced hostility from the bench. Chicago’s lawyer got hit from all sides with little in the way of what you might call support. But the surprise was the way Alan Gura got blasted, even by the best friend gun-rights has up there, Justice Scalia.
Whoever or however we believed the Court might be ready to review the Privileges or Immunities clause of 14A was totally wrong. Every Justice had problems with the scope of such a decision, and poor Gura had to withstand withering assaults on his reasoning and approach.
I definitely need a transcript to go over what exactly happened, I thought audio was weak in chambers, complexity was way large, and in chatter afterwards found I wasn’t the only one. How those aging Justices keep up – and they did, note for note, cite for cite – is a bloody miracle.
BOTTOM LINE – it looks like the Heller majority may hold together for this case, and the Second Amendment will be incorporated against the states, under the familiar selective incorporation of Due Process. The same 2A that controls federal activity will apply to the states, no more, no less, though that issue of degree got a lot of attention. Not that the scope of 2A is all the well defined, but there was animus to the idea that incorporation would yield a “shadow” version for the states.
Gura may get the win, but not for any brilliant strategic planning – there was open hostility to the idea, central to his arguments, of 2A being a Privilege or Immunity of citizenship (I’ll discuss soon). The win, if there is one, may be more of a result of the bench being unprepared to treat 2A as some special bastard child the states do not have to follow, unlike the rest of the Bill of Rights that has been incorporated so far.
And let me tell you, thank God for the NRA. They took a lot of heat for asking for and getting some of Gura’s oral argument time, using Paul Clement who had argued the government’s unsavory position for a low standard of scrutiny in Heller, getting their hat in the ring. That turned out to be baloney, they were life savers. Considering the ferocity with which Gura and P&I were attacked, we were lucky to have at elegant, articulate, eloquent voice to apply 2A through Due Process. (Don’t get me wrong, Chicago fared just as poorly, but for different reasons.)
Clement’s arguments were so well made and so compelling, he got to speak at length without interruption, with the Justices in rapt attention. I asked him about that afterwards and he said yeah, it was really nice getting some “air time.”
There’s so much more to tell, the back-and-forth over substantive and procedural due process, and the – un-frickin-believable – lengthy consideration by the Justices of how much RKBA we’d enjoy if there was “no Second Amendment” (protected instead as a privilege or immunity), plus Breyer’s astounding hostility towards guns in general ("guns kill!"), and Stevens’ ‘parading around with guns’ concerns… it’ll have to be later (been on the go since 5:30 a.m., probably when I return to Phoenix, beginning of next week.
It was an honor and a thrill witnessing it all.
Alan.
Alan Korwin
Bloomfield Press
“We publish the gun laws.”
4848 E. Cactus, #505-440
Scottsdale, AZ 85254
http://www.gunlaws.com
EYEWITNESS REPORT
Mar. 1, 2010 (Late)[Bawky hotel computer connection – excuses for bad format, reserve the right to correct quickly made word choices etc.]
I’m back in my hotel, having endured the weather in front of the U.S. Supreme Court, anticipating oral arguments in McDonald v. Chicago in the a.m., the case that will decide the standing of our Second Amendment rights in the 50 states.
Well, people are lining up allright. Young people who can withstand it.
It’s bitter cold with a 20 MPH wind, but if you’ve decided to come here for the latest most seminal gun-rights case imaginable that’s not going to stop you.
At 5PM when I arrived (night before the oral argument) there were eight people awaiting seats for tomorrow’s McDonald v. Chicago 14th Amendment/Second Amendment case. By the time I left, with my feet too numb to feel, there were thirteen people trickled in, including a GW law-school student and her Mom who brought an air matress and a comforter. When I cell-phoned some of the stalwarts later, before beginning this draft, I was told there were nearly 50 people there, including 15 or so high-school students who decided to rough it and see a landmark case at the Supreme Court. Only 50 are guaranteed seats, so the window of opportunity is pratically closed. The Marshall’s office expected the crowd to develop in the a.m., looks like they’ll be SOOL. Coulda been worse – for Heller, the line started TWO days ahead of time. This night-before stuff is child’s play. But it’s COOOOOLD.
As usual, the hale and hearty on line are more knowledgable about this case
than most of the public (and the media – Wash Post made their above-the-fold front-page story today a referendum on Justice Scalia, read like an unsavory biography (they don’t like the guy!), instead of the merits of the case; what facts Court reporter Robert Barnes did provide were out of whack, thin, misleading, pretty standard for that rag. Guess what they chose for an illustration – a picture of Chirs Broughton carrying his AR-15 at the Obama rally in Phoenix!! I kid you not. That makes sense, right? The Wash Compost’s idea of a gun image is a months old piece of discriminatory controversy, not something depicting basic human rights).We had dynamic chats on the street about the premise of the case (the Post barely touched it), constitutional realities, the unknowns, the likely outcomes, the vote – Mike the blogger, incredibly knowledgable and with past cases at his fingertips with such detail and a tongue too fast even for me to follow, predicts a 9 -0 result – the Court will not overrule its Heller jurisprudence, and even hopelessly anti-gun-rights Ginsburg will forgo her hatred of 2A to reintstate 14A, or so he believes. Robert Cumberland flew in from Californai and is first in line – and he knows his stuff. This case affects him more than even Heller – that case set the groundwork, but this is the one that might actually force reinstatement of his abrogated rights, and he wants to be here to see it.
The carnival atmosphere is definitely lacking, there isn’t a single camera crew set up – at Heller there were dozens at this point, but no doubt there will be some tomorrow. Yet this case stands to have more net effect than Heller, it just doesn’t break ground in the same way. Dick Heller was out there after I left (phone tips from the folks I met, seven men and one woman), chatting up the crowd, enjoying his 15 years of fame, his nephew plans to be on line to see the proceedings, some guy named Robert is holding a place in line in the freezing cold for a party unnamed, at $20 an hour. Dan Schmutter, attorney for JPFO dropped by to see what’s up, this is definitely the hot ticket in town – all seats in Chambers are reserved, save for the precious few for the rabble (what we call the public).
Perhaps the most telling perspective came from a British theology professor visiting here, met in a bar on the frigid way home – he thinks the only rights you legitimately have are those the government gives you. You can have a gun if government “allows” it, with no ammo, locked in a locker, and this is freedom. If he was on the Court we’d be doomed. I’m not making this up.
Exhausted, need to pack, will observe tomorow and provide my observatiosn soon. Real soon.
Alan.
Supreme Court Gun Cases is now available as a complete and fully searchable PDF eBook online or as a mailed CD (for a fraction of the original 672-page book’s price, which is now out of print).
http://www.gunlaws.com/supreme.htmThe Heller Case: Gun Rights Affirmed! has the complete case that saved the Second Amendment, with 400 key quotes highlighted and plain English analysis, plus summaries of the first 96 gun cases the High Court has decided.
http://www.gunlaws.com/hc.htmAlan.
Remember: In Heller, when we waited with bated breath for the bottom-line result we wanted to hear “Affirmed.” And we did. In this case, we’re rooting for “Reversed.” That means the lower court decision supporting Chicago’s gun-rights denial, which is being challenged here, is overturned.
The McDonald v. Chicago petitioners website, with background:
http://www.chicagoguncase.comThe amicus brief joined by Bloomfield Press:
BLOOMFIELD PRESS McDonald v. Chicago amicus curiae briefBackground on all Supreme Court Gun Cases:
http://www.gunlaws.com/supreme.htmMy initial summary and press release on the issues:
http://www.gunlaws.com/McDonald_v_Chicago_BP_Amicus.htmEvery amicus brief filed:
http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/feb2010.shtml#mcdonaldSupreme Court official website:
http://www.supremecourtus.govAlan Korwin
Bloomfield Press
“We publish the gun laws.”
4848 E. Cactus, #505-440
Scottsdale, AZ 85254
http://www.gunlaws.com
Nassau County Fish and Game Association, Inc. (NCFGA) and the Suffolk Alliance of Sportsmen, Inc. (SASI) are the county sportsmen’s/women’s federations, in and for Nassau and Suffolk Counties, NY. As such, jointly, we represent more than 60,000 firearms owners, plus tens of thousands of other sportsmen and sportswomen.
Those of you, who have been members of NCFGA or SASI, for awhile, know that, annually, we provide our members with recommendations, concerning those who, in our opinion, are the best choices for the NRA board.
This year, as in the last several years, our criteria are stringent, because we believe you should have only the best qualified, on the NRA board.
Our choices are made from among those candidates, whom we feel best represent the interests of the membership of NRA, not necessarily those who are picked by the NRA’s Nominating Committee or those who the NRA’s officers might like to see on NRA’s board.This year is a first. Not only are we recommending a full slate of 25 candidates, the maximum for which you can vote but, for the first time, we had to pass over qualified candidates, in favor of better qualified candidates. For many years, the NRA’s membership has been demanding better candidates, for the NRA BoD, then expressing that demand, in the way it voted, avoiding unqualified or marginally qualified candidates.
NRA is a major corporation, growing and becoming more complex, every year. Dues income, alone, produces more than $195,000,000, in income, each year. Add to that, the income of the NRA Foundation, the NRA Endowment, NRA-ILA, product sales, investment income and NRA’s broadcasting network, plus other, “miscellaneous” items and you have a corporation, the annual budget and assets of which are about a billion dollars ($1,000,000,000), per year. That’s bigger than many of the “name brand” corporations and larger than most firearms manufacturers.
The purpose of a Board of Directors is to set policy, for any corporation, which policy is implemented, by the officers of that corporation. Directors must be able to evaluate, influence and understand the short-term and long-term, national and international ramifications of the multi-million dollar decisions they make. Those directors must, therefore, possess appropriate academic and experience qualifications. Being a nice person, an activist or a qualified and dedicated shooter do not, of themselves, make one qualified, to manage a major business operation.
In NRA’s case, all directors are unpaid (except for expenses) and all officers and other employees are paid. NRA senior officers are, typically, paid six figure salaries, per year. They are paid, to be officers, full time. To allow any of them to also become directors would involved considerable conflict of interest. Consequently, for that reason and that reason only, we have never endorsed a sitting NRA officer or other NRA employee, for the board.
NRA’s needs, this year, as in many years past, are for qualified, executive talent. Consequently, only candidates with academic and/or practical experience, in business management, finance, law, influence gathering and/or with significant, national recognition or political prestige, should be considered. Those candidates, with professional or educational criteria, such as MBAs, LLBs/JDs, CPAs, ChFCs, etc. and/or qualifying experience, i.e.: managing substantial business entities, at the executive levels, are what NRA needs most, for the business management side of the operations. Next, are those with national political recognition and national respect, who know how to get things completed, in the political arena.
It’s a tough set of criteria, for making choices and, sometimes, it requires that folks, who we may like, personally or who may be local, don’t get our recommendation, solely for lack of the best educational or experience credentials.
NRA is, no longer, just a competitive shooting organization, with nothing to manage, except match schedules and match rules. Today, almost every program NRA implements involves millions of dollars. We need people who properly understand the best ways of doing that. The NRA’s board has, because of smart voting, gained a little, most years. That pattern needs to continue and to be encouraged.
You are not required to vote for the maximum of 25 candidates and, in those years when we cannot recommend 25, we strongly suggest that you not vote for all you can. By voting for others, just to round out your 25, you are diluting the votes for the strongest candidates and, at the same time, sending a message that you will consider and accept less than the best candidates. This year, as stated above, we have 25 candidates, each of whom is more than qualified.SASI’s and NCFGA’s joint recommendations, of 25 candidates, in alphabetical order, are:
Allbaugh, Joe M.,
Bachhuber, Frank E.,
Bamberry, M. Carol,
Barr, Bob,
Blunt, Matt,
Brownell, Pete,
Butz, Dave,
Childress, Richard,
Craig, Larry E.,
DiBiasio, Donn C.,
Froman, Sandra S.,
Hallett, Carol B.,
Hammer, Marion P.,
Hanson, L. Kenneth, III
Hill, Graham,
Howard, Susan,
Jackson, H. Joaquin,
Malone, Karl A.,
Mitchell, Cleta,
North, Oliver L.,
Nugent, Johnny,
Nugent, Ted,
Porter, James W. II,
Sanders, Robert E. and
Young, Don E.
NEWTOWN, Conn. – The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday handed Beretta U.S.A. and the firearms industry another victory by rejecting the Brady Center’s appeal of Adames v. Beretta U.S.A. Corporation challenging the constitutionality of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA).
The PLCAA is the 2005 federal law passed by Congress in response to the flood of reckless lawsuits brought by the Brady Center on behalf of anti-gun mayors seeking to hold members of the firearms industry liable for the criminal or unlawful misuse of their products.
This is now the third time this year the Supreme Court has denied a challenge to the PLCAA backed by the Brady Center. In March 2009, the Brady Center was also involved in the appeals of Lawson v. Beretta and City of New York v. Beretta, both of which the Supreme Court refused to hear. Monday’s Supreme Court decision in the Adames case is another stinging setback to the Brady Center’s failed anti-gun political agenda to destroy the individual right of Americans to keep and bear arms – a right the Supreme Court declared last year in Heller was protected by the Second Amendment.
The Adames lawsuit was filed by the Brady Center on behalf of a family seeking to hold Beretta responsible for the tragic shooting death of their son, caused solely by the criminal acts of a teenage boy who gained unauthorized access to his father’s unsecured service pistol. The case was originally dismissed by a Chicago trial court, subsequently reinstated in part by the Illinois Court of Appeals, and then ultimately found to be barred under the PLCAA by the Illinois Supreme Court. By its decision yesterday, the Supreme Court found it unnecessary to consider the Illinois Supreme Court’s well-reasoned decision that held the PLCAA was both constitutional and clearly applicable to this lawsuit.
Representing Beretta in the case was Craig Livingston of the Livingston Law Firm, who after being notified of the Supreme Court’s rejection of the appeal remarked, “And so ends a long legal battle – from the trial court in Chicago, through the Illinois appellate courts, and all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court – which served only to confirm what has been known since May 5, 2001, namely that this tragic shooting death was caused not by any defect in a Cook County Corrections Officer’s Beretta pistol, but rather by its reckless misuse on that fateful day by his teenage son.”
Lawrence G. Keane, senior vice president and general counsel of the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), the trade association for the firearms industry, applauded yesterday’s Supreme Court rejection of the Brady Center’s appeal, stating, “Frivolous and unsupported lawsuits such as Adames that attempt to force manufacturers of firearms to pay for the crimes of others over whom they have no control are precisely what the PLCAA is designed to stop.”
About NSSF
The National Shooting Sports Foundation is the trade association for the firearms industry. Its mission is to promote, protect and preserve hunting and the shooting sports. Formed in 1961, NSSF has a membership of more than 5,000 manufacturers, distributors, firearms retailers, shooting ranges, sportsmen’s organizations and publishers. For more information, log on to www.nssf.org.
On January 12th, 2010, Representatives from SSWA, SASI and NCFGA will be going to Albany to participate in a Sportsmen and Outdoor Recreation Legislative Awareness Day, sponsored by Brian Kolb, the NYS Assembly Minority Leader. Your SASI and NCFGA representatives will be meeting with state legislators to discuss those items of concern that we have as Long Island Sportsmen. For a part of the day, your reps. will be staffing a display table in the lobby of the legislative building.
If your club has a sign, poster board, picture book, brochure or something similar which could be displayed at that table, it would be a great opportunity to let the folks upstate know about your club and about our sporting organizations on Long Island.
You do not need anyone from your club to attend… but if you have something to loan for display purposes, it will help to make a strong and positive impression of sportsmen’s involvement on Long Island. Anything your club does loan will be returned. There will be many Counties with display tables at this Awareness Day event. We are hoping that Nassau and Suffolk Counties will stand out. Help make this something to be proud of. If you have something from your club or organization to display, contact us and let us know. We are waiting to hear from you.
In Suffolk (SSWA) contact Ron Sineo at (631) 862-8518
In Nassau (NCFGA) contact Charlie Bevelacqua at (516) 921-1429
Hank Foglino (Old Bethpage R&P Club) and Lew Kelly (Grumman R&G Club) will be jointly conducting a NYS Hunter Safety Instructor’s Course, in April of 2010.
While that may sound like a ways away, you must first apply to, then be cleared by, the NYS DEC, to be eligible to take the course. That process can take up to 60 days, so you need to start now, if you are interested in becoming a Hunter Safety Instructor.
The course is free and will be taught at Jacob’s Shipyard, in Nassau County.
To obtain your application, then start the approval process, go to: www.dec.ny.gov/outdoor/9189.html, then click on choose the ‘To Become an Instructor Application’. Alternatively, you can call them at (1-888-486-8332) for the application. Complete that app, submit it, following the instructions, then wait for your authorization to attend the course.If you need or want additional information, contact Hank, at foglinh@sunysuffolk.edu or Lew, at lew.kelly@ngc.com. These course are not offered very often; so, if you are interested, start the process now.
As you’ll recall, from last month’s column, the Suffolk County Police Department announced that they would be issuing purchase documents, without the need to provide the specific information, about the handgun you wished to purchase. They also announced that, at the same time, the purchase doc would be good for 15 calendar days, rather than the previous 10 days.
While they were able to comply with the 1st part, they had a problem, with the 2nd part. It turned out that their computer software, which created the purchase documents, was not able to change the amount of days, for which the document would be valid, without an update. According to their contract, with their software vendor, updates were performed but once a year.
Consequently, they could not comply with the 15 day portion but, being the resourceful folks they are, they came up with an alternative. After the computer issues the regular, 10 day purchase document, they have decided to rubber stamp it, with not 15 days but 20 days. Now, purchase docs will be good, for 20 calendar days and you will have 20 calendar days, to return, to Yaphank, with the handgun, for registration, rather than the old 10 days. This change is effective, as of August 31st.
As always, if you don’t use the purchase doc, it must be returned but, now, you can return the unused doc, by mail, marked “not used.”
Webmaster e-mail:
cklein@suffolkalliance.org.com
