Young v. Hawaii
CLDEF joined other pro-gun parties to urge the U.S. Supreme Court to review the virtual total ban on carrying firearms in the State of Hawaii. We urge the Court to overturn the two-step test used in many Second Amendment challenges.
Duncan v. Bonta
Today, CLDEF joined Gun Owners of America, Inc., and others in filing an amicus brief attacking the constitutionality of a California ban on standard capacity magazines, which the California law mislabels as “Large Capacity Magazines.” The District Court and Ninth Circuit panel both ruled for that the laws were unconstitutional, and the Ninth Circuit granted rehearing en banc. Our brief defends the decision reached by the courts below, but urges the Ninth Circuit to reject its atextual “two-step” test and simply apply the “text, history, and tradition” of the Second Amendment to reach a decision.
Wrenn v. District of Columbia
Today, an amicus brief was filed, on behalf of CLDEF, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, in support of a challenge to the District of Columbia’s requirement that a person must demonstrate a “good reason” in order to obtain a permit to carry a concealed weapon. The brief noted that before Heller, the federal courts perpetuated the charade that the right of “the People” was a collective rather than an individual right. Now, the brief argued, the lower courts are perpetuating a new charade — that rights which “shall not be infringed” can indeed be infringed so long as the government strongly desires to do so, and judges believe the regulations are reasonable. The brief argued that use of such “interest-balancing” tests permits judges to come to whatever result they prefer, as this case uniquely indicates.
Hamilton v. Pallozzi
Today, an amicus brief was filed on behalf of CLDEF in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit supporting the right of a Maryland resident to purchase and possess firearms despite a prior conviction. Hamilton had been convicted of a non-violent felony in Virginia and served his sentence. Later, Virginia restored his civil rights, and then a Virginia Court specifically restored his firearms rights.
Peruta v. San Diego
(opposing San Diego’s “good cause” policy on concealed carry permits)
A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit previously handed down an opinion striking down San Diego County’s policy under which “self-defense” was not considered to be a “good cause” allowing the issuance of a concealed carry permit. Now, the Ninth Circuit decided to re-hear the case en banc. The Peruta case was consolidated with another case, Richards v. County of Yolo, which challenged Yolo County’s “good cause” policy. Our brief addressed issues in both cases.