02/15/2024
This is a great read
If youre not already a supporter of 2AF, I encourage you to start TODAY!
_____________________________
Q&A: Alan Gottlieb | Second Amendment Foundation
QA Outdoors: Alan Gottlieb, Second Amendment Foundation, let’s just get right to it. A lot of controversies still boiling about in the lower court as far as the Second Amendment, and most specifically as a result of the most recent (Bruen) decision. The Second Amendment Foundation has taken a relatively novel approach to remedying or at least addressing this situation. You are now moving for cert in the Supreme Court to stop- or at least address- a lot of lower court foolishness, are you not?
Alan Gottlieb
Well, we have two cert petitions right now pending before the Supreme Court, one dealing with the so called Maryland assault gun ban. That's an interesting one. Let me talk about for just a second - because we already had a cert petition for the Supreme Court on this case -prior to Bruen.
When the Supreme Court decided Bruen, they granted the cert, reversed the lower court, and remanded it back down to the lower trial court - in light of the Bruner decision- to rehear it.
The lower court did. Then it went up to the Appeals Court in the Fourth Circuit, and a three judge panel of the Fourth heard oral arguments, but never issued a decision. Then, all of a sudden, out of nowhere, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals decides to take it en banc and have all 14 judges review the case, even though their three judge panel never issued their opinion. And so we decided that we were going to be proactive. So, we filed the cert petition with the US Supreme Court to just pull that one in there now, because - obviously- we're getting je**ed around on it. And it's in total violation of Bruen.
This court already had a cert, granted it, reversed the opinion, and remanded it back to the lower courts. And so we're back with that.
And then now we just filed the cert petition in the Harrel v. Raoul. case, out of Illinois challenging their AR and magazine capacity bans as well.
So we have two pending cases before the Supreme Court at this juncture.
QA Outdoors: Well, explain to our readers and listeners, what cert actually does. We toss terms and sometimes forget not everyone has our page of definitions.
Alan Gottlieb
It's basically a petition to the Supreme Court to hear a case — to take a case on. As you know, they get thousands of these requests every year. And they can only take a very small number of cases every year. So it's way way less than, like 1%.
So getting a case heard by the Supreme Court is not an easy thing to do. Obviously, this is a controversial issue we're dealing with. And it's been there before the court before. So I think our chances are a whole lot better than so-called one percent.
But it's always a long shot, getting them to hear anything. I do believe they are going to hear a case on gun rights in the near future. And I believe that one of these two would fall as a great possibility of being one they will hear.
QA Outdoors: Let's pivot to another topic….the Hawaii case where the Hawaii State Supreme Court just basically said, I'm sorry, the United States Supreme Court is not the Supreme Court in Hawaii because of the “spirit of aloha” -is what they call their defense.
How ridiculous on the surface, does it seem to you that that a state court will just tell the Supreme Court you're wrong?
Alan Gottlieb
It's obviously very ridiculous to me.
You know, “a spirit” doesn't trump the Constitution and their spirit, doesn't it?
This whole thing didn't make any sense at all. The lower court judge in this case ruled in favor of the plaintiff. And Hawaii’s State Supreme Court ended up taking this case. It's a ridiculous ruling. - not grounded in any kind of fact, at all.
They're just trying to say this court doesn’t have to listen to the Supreme Court. And I don't think the Supreme Court's gonna tolerate that.
We've already been in contact on this one. Adam Kratt, our executive director has been in contact with the attorney for the plaintiff in this case, who happens to be a public defender.
And we're offering to assist to move for cert to the US Supreme Court from the state Supreme Court. We've offered our assistance to get engaged in this and work on a cert petition for this one, to also go to the US Supreme Court.
We haven't heard back yet from the attorney, but I'm hoping to get the Second Amendment being greatly involved.
QA Outdoors: If the (United States) Supreme Court does not act - and act decisively - on this, there's a precedent there. Not a legal precedent, but a “we’re just going to ignore you if we don't like your rulings” precedent. That puts the whole “three-legged stool” of our government and the Constitution in question, does it not?
Alan Gottlieb
It definitely does. But I just like to caution here a little bit. Remember, the Second Amendment itself was a forgotten amendment for the US Supreme Court for decades, until they took took the Heller case.
So, you know, we're used to - with Second Amendment rights, you know, struggling and then seeing the courts ignoring us from time to time. But I don't think that's going to happen anymore on Second Amendment issues.
QA Outdoors: Agreed…but “Justice delayed is always justice denied” is what’s taught in law 101, and then they teach you to ignore that. But um, for for the the Roberts Court, not to address this undermines the very underpinning of our judicial system.
We have one Supreme Court. It is not the Hawaiian Supreme Court. It’s the United States Supreme Court. So how in the world can they think to have any sort of primacy on this?
Alan Gottlieb
Well, I do believe the Supreme Court's gonna gonna hear on these gun cases and help resolve the lower courts thumbing your nose at Supreme Court decisions. As I'm sure you know, and most of your listeners and readers, it only takes four justices on the Supreme Court to hear a case. It takes five to win one, but only four to hear a case, right?
I am pretty sure we're gonna have four justices - at least - want to hear this case. I believe if the court does hears the case, we'll have at least five judges ruling in our favor.
QA Outdoors: I think that would be hard to argue. Here is a question that you probably field 12 times before lunch every day…How do you keep on fighting with people who just will refuse to accept the interpretation of the law and when the legal verdicts are offered? You win one way they sneak the other. It's a constant battle. Now, we have massive safe zones in cities. Once the right to carry was defined they went to fine print to determine where they could continue to limit the right. Does it never stop?
Alan Gottlieb
Obviously, it never stops. But they act in ways that are irresponsible, event crazy..and they keep doubling and tripling down on their anti-gun rights agenda.
I actually gives me - and our staff - more energy to go back after them. And they make it a little more easy for us.
You know, after the Bruen decision and striking down the carry law in New York, I figured “well, they're gonna come back and pass something that be slightly less restrictive, and make us go back to court and challenge it.”
But they didn't do that.
They doubled down. They went past something that was even more restricted than they had. As a result, that actually makes our job- in some ways- a little easier. So sometimes, their intransigence- their craziness- actually helps us a bit, you know.
Prior to the Bruen decision, they issued some permits in New York City. It was a little more specific in Times Square.
After Bruen, they said “now, we have a sensitive area here. So we now have to give you permits, but they just aren’t good in Times Square.” So they pulled the premises permits from all the businesses in the so-called Times Square area, saying it’s all now a “sensitive area.”
They doubled -or tripled down - and again, they make our job easier in the long run. It's a religion to them. Hating guns and gun owners is a religion to them.
QA Outdoors: Well, I always try to stay out of politics and religion if at all possible, but I believe you're exactly right: it is a religion to them. It's doctrinal and fundamental.
That’s despite my being taught - while living in New York City - that the definition of a conservative was a liberal who had been burgled -twice. it's almost as if they deny the obvious.
But they do what they do..because it’s what they do. And the “court will do what the court will do.”
But, Alan, If the intransigence remains, what does the court do? The Supreme Court doesn't have an enforcement division. They do have the US Marshals. But do they send marshals to Hawaii and cuff up the state supreme court justices for contempt of court?
Alan Gottlieb
That's not going to happen. I wish it would. But that's not going to happen.
There are so many avenues our opponents have attacked, you know, our right to keep your arms on. The question that remains is what the Supreme Court's gonna think is the best vehicle or the best issue to quote “strike back at the lower courts” unquote that, you know, have not obeyed Supreme Court rulings.
And as you mentioned, we have sensitive places doctrines now in place and we’re challenging those laws and working your way up to the Supreme Court. There are also the magazine capacities, the so called assault weapon bans. We’re also taking on the young adult issue -not being able to buy guns for self defense -it’s percolating its way up to the Supreme Court as well.
There are a couple of other areas that the anti gunners have gotten engaged in. The big question is going to be which which area is where the Court wants to make their standl. I can’t predict what that’s going to be. I just hope whichever one they pic, they pick sooner rather than later.
QA Outdoors: Okay, let's talk about something we very seldom broach: the fact that it is not an inexpensive undertaking for the Second Amendment foundation to do the things that the Second Amendment Foundation does. If someone wants to help you in that work, help me tell them how to help you. How do they do that?
Alan Gottlieb
Easiest way is to go online at SAF dot O-R-G (saf.org). You can join and donate that way.
Or our contact information is on the website as well. If they want to talk with us personally, or getting engaged with with myself or anybody on staff, we're more than happy to do that.
These cases are expensive. When we took McDonald vs. Chicago to the US Supreme Court, it costs in excess of three quarters of a million dollars- at reduced legal fees.
We did recover, you know, I think it was just under $400,000 from the city of Chicago to pay for some of our fees after we won. But these cases get to be rather expensive at the Supreme Court level by the time we get there. You are looking in the three quarter million dollar range, per case. Lower court ones are going anywhere from a quarter of a million to a half million dollars.
Right now, we have fifty-nine (59) different lawsuits that we’re engaged in. So you can extrapolate a minimum of a quarter of a million dollars into 59. We can use all the financial help we can get.
QA Outdoors: Well, hopefully we can bring a little your way.
Alan, thanks for the time, as always. Keep us posted.
Alan Gottlieb
Thank you very much. I appreciate that. Jim, I just want to point out one more thing.
A little over 80% of the case law that have been won in the courts protecting Second Amendment rights has been won by the Second Amendment foundation and are our attorneys.
So I'm really proud of our track record. And we couldn't have done that without the support of you know, hundreds of thousands of gun owners out there.
The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) is dedicated to promoting a better understanding about our Constitutional heritage to privately own and possess fi****ms. To that end, we carry on many educational and legal action programs designed to better inform the public about the gun control debate.
