CCDL Joins Amicus Brief in Duncan v. Becerra

Last week CCDL joined over twenty other law enforcement and firearms rights groups in filing an amicus brief in the 9th Circuit Court case of Duncan v. Becerra. This is a case regarding California’s ban on possession of magazines holding over ten rounds with no grandfather clause.
That’s right, confiscation of lawfully obtained private property.

Now it seems that every time we file one of these briefs, someone always complains that we’re getting involved in cases that don’t impact our members. Why is a Connecticut group wasting resources on a problem 3000 miles away in California?

It should be obvious, but apparently it isn’t. These cases can have a HUGE effect on gun rights nationwide. That’s why many of these same groups filed briefs in our case. If California is allowed to confiscate lawfully obtained magazines because they exceed an arbitrary capacity, how soon before other states like our own follow?

You can read the entire amicus brief here (pdf file): CCDL amicus brief Duncan FILESTAMPED.pdf

If you would like to see other documents file in this case, click here.

CCDL Joins California Fight

The Connecticut Citizens Defense League has joined with the New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn, Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs, Commonwealth Second Amendment (Massachusetts), Maryland State Rifle & Pistol Assn, and Gun Owners of California to file an amicus brief in the Supreme Court case of Peruta v. San Diego.

While the actual case is in California, Petitioner Ed Peruta maintains a residence in Connecticut, and CCDL feels the outcome of this case could have a direct impact on our state’s ability to deny carry permits to law-abiding gun owners.

The Connecticut Citizens Defense League remains vigilant and active on cases such as these that could have long-lasting impact at both the state and national level.

You can read the Brief of Amici Curiae we filed with the Supreme Court here: 16-894 Amici Brief-CCDL (pdf)

Connecticut Bar Association

An article published recently in the “Connecticut Law Tribune” states that the Connecticut Bar Association (CBA) is considering joining with the Brady Center to submit an amicus in support of Connecticut’s unconstitutional gun law, Public Act 13-3.

“The Connecticut Bar Association is a membership organization of Connecticut attorneys working to advance the principles of justice, the practice of law and the public understanding of the law.” according to the CBA website.

According to the Law Tribune story, The question of whether the CBA should join the amicus being drafted by the Brady Center will go to the CBA House of Delegates for a vote this coming Monday, July 21. The article also claims an email was to have been sent out to all members of the CBA advising them to tell their representatives if they have concerns about the group getting involved in “a social or political matter.”

We know there are quite a few CCDL members who also belong to the Connecticut Bar Association. We urge them to contact the CBA and their representatives before July 21 and tell them how you feel about the CBA siding with the Brady Center and against the constitutionally protected rights of the citizens of CT.

Two lawyers that we know of already have. Scott D. Camassar of the law firm Stephen M. Reck, LLC, and Rachel M. Baird of the law firm Rachel M. Baird & Associate.
Both attorneys have graciously shared their letters with CCDL. Read them both, and if you are a member of the Bar Association as well, be sure to submit your own letter before Monday.

UPDATE: Attorney Martha Dean sent us a copy of her letter to the CBA, as well as further info about the upcoming CBA vote. She writes:

The Connecticut Bar Association is about to vote on whether to become a signatory to the Brady Center’s amicus brief in Shew v. Malloy (the federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of CT’s new firearms law). CBA’s Human Rights Section is pushing this anti-2nd Amendment position within the organization. Please share and forward this information on to all pro-2A attorneys and any other attorneys who would be concerned about this blatant and, in my view, entirely improper, politicization of CBA. Ask them to make their voices heard in writing and/or at the meeting this coming Monday. Any attorney who is a member of CBA can send written feedback to the CBA executive committee c/o this address: ON OR BEFORE SUNDAY JULY 20, 2014. Any CBA member can attend the Special Meeting to discuss whether CBA should sign-on to the Brady brief on Monday, July 21 at 6 p.m. at CBA Headquarters in New Britain. In order to attend the special meeting, CBA members MUST SIGN UP BY (tomorrow) THURSDAY, JULY 18 here >>

Full disclosure – Martha Dean is one of many lawyers involved in our lawsuit, Shew v. Malloy.

Scott Camassar letter (pdf)

Rachel Baird letter (pdf)

Martha Dean letter (pdf)

More Amicus Briefs

Today we have two more Amicus Briefs that have been filed in support of our federal appeal of the Shew v. Malloy decision.

The first comes from a group of organizations, headed up by Gun Owners of America (GOA). It also includes the Gun Owners Foundation, U.S. Justice Foundation, Oregon Firearms Educational Foundation, The Lincoln Institute for Research and Education, The Abraham Lincoln Foundation for Public Policy Research, the Institute on the Constitution, the Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund, and the Policy Analysis Center.

The second brief comes from the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF). Both are well written, and make strong points in support of our case. Go read them!

GOA Amicus Brief (pdf)

NSSF Amicus Brief (pdf)

Litigation Update – Amicus Brief

Amicus Brief is short for “Amicus Curiae Brief”. Amicus Curiae is Latin for “friend of the court”. It’s a legal brief filed with the court by someone who is not an actual party to the litigation, but who believes that the court’s decision may affect its interest. Well, yesterday the Attorney Generals from twenty-three states filed an Amicus Brief in support of our appeal in Shew v. Malloy. Those states are Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming. All 23 of these states agree that Public Act 13-3 infringes upon the rights of the citizens of Connecticut, and if allowed to stand may eventually set a precedence for infringing upon the rights of all US citizens. You may read or download a copy of the brief here:
Shew v Malloy States’ Amicus Brief (pdf)

Amicus Briefs Filed in Support of Litigation

In support of the current litigation that CCDL is involved in with other groups and individuals, a number of interested parties have filed Briefs in the Connecticut District Federal Court that compliment our claim. The Amicus Briefs claim that public act 13-3 ‘AN ACT CONCERNING GUN VIOLENCE PREVENTION AND CHILDREN’S SAFETY’ is unconstitutional, and that the law makes people less safe. CCDL Welcome’s the support from these organizations and individuals!!
Here Are the Briefs:

SHEW v. MALLOY Amicus Brief for Pink Pistols (pdf)
SHEW v. MALLOY Amicus Brief filed for Various Retired Police (pdf)
SHEW v. MALLOY Amicus Brief filed by the NRA (pdf)

Names of Organizations Which Filed Briefs:

Pink Pistols
Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund
Law Enforcement Action Network
International Law Enforcement Educators and Trainers
A number of Active and Retired Connecticut Peace officers
The National Rifle Association