Kuck Decsions from Second Circuit

imported post

This is the decision released today in the Kuck appeal.


The Second Circuitis not happy with the delaysregarding denials and revocation hearings.

I will leavethe comments to attorneys, butthe decisions in Kuck and Goldberg bode well for those who wish to challenge negative decisions regarding permit to carry etc.

Things will definitely change in the near future.

imported post

Ed,

Could you spin some English on these two cases for those not aware of what these rulings mean?



Carry On!

Scott

imported post

The part of the Kuck decision says it all. Every appeal should cite this case when asking for a timely appeal on the denial or revocation.

[align=left]Here, the state’s account is far from overwhelming: the defendants argue that the prolongedwait is simply a function of the Board’s caseload and backlog. Yet, on the pleadings, there is noindication that this time is required to gather evidence, perform additional investigation, or formallyconsider the appeal. Instead, the complaint suggests that the appeal sits gathering dust for nearlyall of the interim period, awaiting the scheduled hearing date. Moreover, the amended complaintstates that the Board held only 40 appeal hearings in fiscal year 2006-07 – or less than four appealsper month. [font=TimesNewRoman,Italic]See [/font]Am. Compl. ¶¶ 195-197. Thus, the pleadings themselves do not support a clear caseof routine administrative delay or overburdened bureaucracy. [font=TimesNewRoman,Italic]See Isaacs v. Bowen[/font], 865 F.2d 468,477 (2d Cir. 1989). All in all, the State’s argument boils down to an assertion that public safety isimportant and appeals have gotten backed up. But the delay has little apparent connection to thepublic interest invoked by defendants. The State gives no account of how or why public safetyrequires unsuccessful applicants to wait a year-and-a-half for an appeal hearing.[/align]

imported post

The state moved to dismiss the motions based on certain criteria.
Goldberg didn't respond to their claims directly but based his reasons for not dismissing the case on the facts.
The state claimed that because he didn't address their claims directly that was as bad as not responding at all and the court should dismiss Goldbergs complaint for non-responsiveness.
The 2nd circuit court said "err no, he did respond, he responded with 4 paragraphs of facts and we err on the side of Mr. Goldberg" They overturned the dismissal of the lower court and sent it back to them.

The law is an ass, I'm hoping in this case it's got two really strong hind legs ready to kick.


The state court now has been reversed and goes back to them to be heard.

I'm not sure what the lower court is going to make of this, I was hoping that the 2nd circuit court of appeals would come back with a judgment with some teeth in it.

Wait and see I guess.