'Good cause' gun restriction faces court challenge

[Confederate Kahanist]

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=179877




By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

A requirement by the Westchester County, New York, government that residents have a "good cause" to ask for a handgun permit is being challenged in court by the Second Amendment Foundation.

The federal lawsuit comes only two weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court interpreted the Second Amendment to provide to every individual in the U.S. the right to "keep and bear arms."

It's already the second lawsuit filed by the SAF since the Supreme Court precedent: An earlier case challenged a practice in North Carolina of banning guns during "emergencies."

Here's everything you need to know about firearms and ammunition

The New York case, filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, White Plains Division, seeks a permanent injunction against enforcement of a state law that allows carry licenses to be denied applicants based on whether they can show "good cause."

SAF said it was joined in the lawsuit by Alan Kachalsky and Christina Nikolov, both Westchester County residents whose permit applications were denied.

Kachalsky was denied because he could not "demonstrate a need for self protection distinguishable from that of the general public." Nikolov's was denied because she could not demonstrate there was "any type of threat to her own safety anywhere."

In addition to Westchester County, Susan Cacace and Jeffrey Cohen, both serving at times as handgun permit licensing officers, are named as defendants.

Attorney Alan Gura, who recently represented SAF in its landmark Second Amendment case before the U.S. Supreme Court, is working on the case.

The complaint explains that under New York law, handgun carry permit applicants must "demonstrate good cause for the issuance of a permit."

But the law violates the Second Amendment, the case states.

"American citizens like Alan Kachalsky and Christina Nikolov should not have to demonstrate good cause in order to exercise a constitutionally-protected civil right," noted SAF Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb. "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. Nobody advocates arming criminals or mental defectives, but honest citizens with clean records should not be denied out of hand.

"Thanks to our recent victory before the Supreme Court," Gottlieb stated, "the Second Amendment now applies to state and local governments. Our lawsuit is a reminder to state and local bureaucrats that we have a Bill of Rights in this country, not a Bill of Needs."

The North Carolina case claims that state statutes forbidding the carrying of firearms or ammunition when officials declare "states of emergency" are unconstitutional. Further, the plaintiffs say a state law allowing the government to prohibit the sale, purchase and possession of firearms and ammunition is unconstitutional.

The basis for the cases is the U.S. Supreme Court decision in a dispute over a Chicago handgun ban. The decision incorporated the Second Amendment rights to the states.

It followed the 2008 Heller decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in which a Washington, D.C., handgun ban was overturned.

WND reported earlier this year when residents of King, N.C., were startled by the banishment of firearms during a "declared snow emergency."

North Carolina is among the states that allow such actions. Under its statute 14-288.7, when a municipality declares a state of emergency in which "public-safety authorities are unable to … afford adequate protection for lives or property" – such as during the recent East Coast record snowfall – "it is unlawful for any person to transport or possess off his own premises any dangerous weapon."

That means that when police can't get through on the roads, the citizens can't take guns off their own property.

"This has to be the most ridiculous event of the century!" protested a commenter at the time on the website of Winston-Salem's WXII-TV, which reported the ban. "This is the ultimate denial of liberties for the most asinine reason ... bad weather!"

Other similar measures are possible in Pennsylvania. In Colorado and Georgia, state lawmakers have tried to eliminate the option for authorities.

The high court's 5-4 ruling in the Chicago case was forecast to bring on such challenges.

It flipped "the burden onto the government and legislatures to show why they need to restrict what the court has already said is an individual right," John Velleco, the director of federal affairs for Gun Owners of America, told WND after the Supreme Court's decision.

In the 2008 Heller case, the court ruled that the Second Amendment right to be armed was an individual right, but the case pertained only to the District of Columbia. With the decision in the case brought by Otis McDonald of Chicago, the high court applied the definition to all the states.

"The right to keep and bear arms must be regarded as a substantive guarantee, not a prohibition that could be ignored so long as the States legislated in an evenhanded manner," Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the majority.

There is other action on the state level regarding gun rights. Already, eight states have adopted laws that specifically exempt guns made, sold and kept inside the states from any federal gun regulations.

A court case already has developed over that effort in Montana – the first state to take the step of ordering federal regulators to stay out of the state's business of regulating its own citizenry's weapons.

In one state, Wyoming, lawmakers even adopted a $2,000 penalty for federal agents trying to enforce federal regulations against an exempted weapon.

WND columnist John Stossel also noted just days ago how "more guns means – hold onto your seat – less crime."

"How can that be, when guns kill almost 30,000 Americans a year? Because while we hear about the murders and accidents, we don't often hear about the crimes stopped because would-be victims showed a gun and scared criminals away. Those thwarted crimes and lives saved usually aren't reported to police (sometimes for fear the gun will be confiscated), and when they are reported, the media tend to ignore them. No bang, no news," he said.

"If guns save lives, it logically follows that gun laws cost lives," he continued.

"Suzanna Hupp and her parents were having lunch at Luby's cafeteria in Killeen, Texas, when a man began shooting diners with his handgun, even stopping to reload. Suzanna's parents were two of the 23 people killed. (Twenty more were wounded.) Suzanna owned a handgun, but because Texas law at the time did not permit her to carry it with her, she left it in her car. She's confident that she could have stopped the shooting spree if she had her gun. (Texas has since changed its law.)"

The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Furthermore, Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, or the Privileges or Immunities Clause, states:

    All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.