Oral Arguments Audio

OK, we finally have audio from the December 9th oral arguments in the 2nd Circuit Court Of Appeals.

After listening, I’m sure you’ll agree that our attorney Dave Thompson made some strong arguments for our side. Also included is the case against our NY neighbor’s (un)SAFE Act, which is similar to our Public Act 13-3 and was argued at the same time.

Don’t forget, Dave Thompson will be coming up from Washington, DC to attend our January 13 meeting, where he share his thoughts on the case and answer questions. If you haven’t made it to a meeting in a while, you’ll want to attend this one.

Also, remember this legal challenge is far from over. Even if we prevail here, the state is sure to appeal. If you can, please donate to our legal fund. 100% of the donations go to this lawsuit. DONATE HERE

If you would like to just download the audio, you can do that here: Second Circuit Oral Arguments.mp3

UPDATE: For those who have not been following this case closely the whole time, I’d just like to point out that this not like a trial you see on TV or in the movies. The bulk of the case is submitted in written form well in advance. Think of the posted audio as just the closing argument, where our lawyer was only allowed 20 minutes to sum up our case. If you’ve been following along, we’ve posted many of these written documents as they became available to us, but if you want a quick overview, click here.

Appellate Court Update

Many people are asking how we made out in court on December 9th. While we probably won’t get a ruling in the case for several months, CCDL executive board member and fundraising coordinator Bob Ferguson wrote this piece on the day’s events.

On December 9th, oral arguments were heard at the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in our case, Shew v. Malloy. The NYSRP v. Cuomo case (SAFE Act) was also on the docket. Since both cases involved similar, though not identical arguments and both plaintiffs had the same legal team, The panel of judges had our lawyers make a combined argument for both cases and then each side (NY and CT) made their arguments, followed by a rebuttal from our attorneys.

David Thompson from the law firm of Cooper & Kirk, PLLC was the lead presenter for our legal team. He was joined at the plaintiff counsel’s table by Brian Stapleton (the lead attorney at the district level) and Stephen Halbrook (noted firearms attorney from the MacDonald v. Chicago case.) These are among the top firearms attorneys in the country. We were treated to a brilliant display by David Thompson that made it clear that our attorneys are in the major leagues, and the attorneys for NY and CT are in the minors. In the short presentation time allowed, David touched on a huge wealth of information that had been presented in previously submitted briefs.

This was the first opportunity that any of us have had to hear our legal team present oral arguments since the arguments were cancelled at the Federal District court level. Many of the CCDL executive board were in the courtroom along with several CCDL members to see first-hand the stellar legal representation that ongoing contributions to the litigation fund have been paying for. The quality of the representation we have in this case is immeasurable.

We are asking all of our members to keep in mind that both sides had previously filed briefs and responses and the oral arguments are just the phase where the justices can ask questions. It may be that the minds of the justices minds are already made up, and they are just seeking to refine their opinions. However, it was abundantly clear by the end of the arguments that our legal team was best prepared with excellent responses to the justices’ questions.

David Thompson completely destroyed the testimony offered by Christopher Koper, the key expert witness for both NY and CT. By the end of the arguments, it was clear to the judges that Koper admitted that “There is little evidence that the AW ban will work or that bans of any ‘military features’ will have any effect.” Both lawyers for NY and CT scrambled to answer this apparent contradiction from their key expert witness with no effect. In fact, they were forced to resort to quoting the “Mother Jones” website as the only other ‘expert’ testimony that they could offer!

One key mistake that the NY and CT attorneys seemed to make was in arguing that the Heller case was strictly concerning handguns. In fact, the case made it clear that the type of firearms protected are “Those in common use for lawful purposes.” Our attorney made that point very clear and even quoted the dissenting Justice Stevens from the SCOTUS Heller case in agreeing that the Heller ruling was NOT only about handguns. It’s not a very good fact pattern for the defense when the Supreme Court Justice on their side actually agrees with OUR assessment of the case.

In short, our legal team clearly came out on top in this phase of the case. That does not mean that we will get a favorable decision however. Intellectual honesty on the part of the panel of judges is key at this point in order to win at this level.

Our attorneys expect a decision to be rendered in 3-6 months, after which, the losing side will no doubt appeal to the SCOTUS. The justices could remand the case back to the lower court for an incorrect ruling or they could affirm the district court’s decision. Regardless, we know this will likely be a long, drawn out legal process. Many thanks to all of you who have contributed to our litigation fund during this process. This truly has been a monumental effort to this point from all of you. Please keep those donations coming. DONATE HERE. A CD Disc of the arguments is being ordered, and we will make sure it is posted for all to listen to when we have it.

CCDL also wishes to thank the National Rifle Association for their continued tactical support in this effort. They have been a tremendous part of this effort to help restore our 2nd Amendment rights to the fullest.

Please join us at our January members meeting as lead attorney David Thompson comes up from Washington D.C. to address our members, and we provide a Q&A session with him. If you have questions about timelines, or other aspects of this case, this will be the time and place for it.

Gun Groups Head To Court

Tomorrow, December 9th, 2014 The Connecticut Citizens Defense League, the Coalition of Connecticut Sportsmen, and all the other litigants in Shew v Malloy (our lawsuit against CT’s unconstitutional gun laws) will be in New York City before the Second Circuit Court Of Appeals.
Oral arguments will be heard in Courtroom 1703 of the Thurgood Marshall US Courthouse located at 40 Foley Square in New York City. The hearings start at 1pm, but there are 4 cases ahead of ours, including the NY challenge to their (un)SAFE Act. Spectator seating is limited, so if you want to sit in the courtroom you need to get there early.
This is a federal court proceeding, not a rally, so please dress and act accordingly if you are going to attended. Also no weapons or recording devices (including cell phones) will be allowed in the courtroom. Arguments for our challenge are expected to last approximately 20 minutes.
We plan to be back in time to attend the member meeting in Middletown at 7pm, where we’ll discuss how things went.

Oral Arguments – December 9th

As we told you a few weeks ago our appeal against CT’s unconstitutional gun laws is finally on the docket. Well, now we have a date.

On Tuesday December 9th, 2014 arguments will be heard in Shew v Malloy in Courtroom 1703 of the Thurgood Marshall US Courthouse located at 40 Foley Square in New York City. The hearings start at 1pm, but there are 4 cases ahead of ours, including the NY challenge to their (un)SAFE Act. Spectator seating is limited, so if you want to sit in the courtroom you will need to get there early. Also, please remember this is a federal court proceeding, not a rally. Please dress and act accordingly if you are going to attended.

We’ll update again as we get closer to the date.

Latest Litigation Update

The attorneys in our appeal of Shew .v Malloy have filed a reply to the brief filed by the State of Connecticut in August. If you need a refresher, you can find that brief here. You can also find all the posts related to our lawsuit over CT’s unconstitutional gun laws here.

If you remember, the State’s “brief” was a whooping 178 pages of fiction. Even though our reply is only 47 pages, I think you will agree it is concise and factual, and refutes all of the State’s claims. I just want to thank everyone who has donated their time, energy and money to get to this point. It hasn’t been easy, and it hasn’t been cheap. Legal expenses are ongoing, so unfortunately so are our requests for donations. You can donate to our Litigation Fund at the link near the top of the page, or here.

Now, here’s the link to download our reply: 166 – reply brief in CT (pdf)

Appellate Brief Filed

As President Scott Wilson mentioned yesterday, a brief was filed today with 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals. It outlines our case and why we believe the court’s ruling against us in Shew v. Malloy was wrong. I’m certainly no expert, but I think our legal team makes an excellent case on multiple fronts. If you want to know where the donations are going, this is a perfect example. It should be obvious to anyone reading it that a huge number of hours of research have gone into this (all billable, I’m sure, LOL!).

2nd Circuit Appellate Brief (pdf)