Reply
Brief – Opposition Brief – Reply Brief
This is the three document sequence true to all five of the cases being argued on March 20, 2023 before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals (NYC). Those cases are Antonyuk II, Hardaway, Christian, Spencer, and my own Gazzola v. Hochul.
I’ve posted for your free download the Brief and Reply Brief that I’ve just finished submitting, as of last Friday. The double-spacing and the 14-point type? Required by court rule. There’s nothing “short” about court documents. That said, it is true that I received approval for an “expanded” brief with an additional 2,500 words…and it still wasn’t enough.
The issues in Gazzola v. Hochul are compelling and amazing. It’s true that the case initiates in opposition to NYS Governor Hochul jamming two major pieces of legislation through the NYS Senate and Assembly (a negative), but the extremist legislation created the perfect opportunity to file a case about which I have long wondered. Our case focuses on the word “to keep” of “to keep and bear Arms” of the Second Amendment.
The other four cases concern “to bear.” Where and when can a person concealed carry in New York, and what limits can the state place upon those fundamental rights of self-defense? Much litigation has been had over this word, “to bear”, including Heller v. Chicago, D.C. v. McDonald, and NYSRPA v. Bruen.
But what has history told us about “to keep?” Admittedly, not much. There’s a lovely decision, Andrews v. State, out of Tennessee in 1871 that describes it well in passing. There’s two pages in a memo, written in 2004, from the US DOJ Counsel’s Office to respond to a request for legal opinion from President George W. Bush. Neither of those are quite what we’re arguing, but these examples are as close as we get.
It's the first time in U.S. history that the “to keep” is coming under attack in the form of a state trying to put dealers in firearms out of business. New York is the only state in the country with this new law, as well.
Where we draw much of our legal strength is from the federal firearms compliance law and background check system. Our best ally in this fight is arguments based upon the relationship of the ATF with the FFL (the “federal firearms licensee” who is the “dealer in firearms”). That system blipped in 1934 when the National Firearms Act required dealers to have a license. It didn’t appear again until 1968 when the Gun Control Act built out that concept and started listing categories of persons who are “disqualified” from firearms ownership. It’s the 1993 Brady Act that set up the modern NICS as we know it, including the ATF Form 4473. All of this has organically evolved over nearly 100 years into an intricate and highly-functional system.
So please be invited dive in to a reading of our Reply or the preceding Brief and whet prepare your ears for the oral arguments! You’ll be able to listen live, next Monday, March 20, 2023 at 10 a.m. A podcast will be available on the court’s website thereafter. Keep us in your prayers!
Special request? If you would, contribute towards our expenses of the case? Dozens have contributed already ~ truly an inspiration. Please help us to get our papers in on time and in proper form! Pass the Hat!
