Suitability is attacked in federal filing

This was filed in th Goldberg v. Danaher case.

Thank you Attorney Rachel M. Baird:

For the excellent work in addressing the issue of "SUITABILITY" in the State of Connecticut.




Filed with the U.S. Federal District Court on March 10, 2011

IN PART:

III. ARGUMENTS OF LAW

A. The Amended Complaint
Count One:

The “Suitability” Standard for Issuance of a Permit to Carry isUnconstitutional

1. The “Suitability” Standard is Vague, Subject to UncheckedDiscretion By Law Enforcement, the Board, and the Courts

The DPS basis for revoking Goldberg’s state permit was lack of suitability.

State statutes list ten factors reviewed by state and local agencies in Connecticut for determination of a person’s eligibility to obtain or hold a temporary or state permit to carry pistols or revolvers. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 29-28(b). The statute also requires “suitability.” Conn. Gen. Stat. § 29-28(b). A person is disqualified from holding a state permit even if he or she meets all ten of the eligibility factors but is not deemed suitable. A person is disqualified from holding a state permit if he or she is suitable but does not meet one or more of the eligibility factors. Only a suitable person who meets all ten eligibility factors may hold a state permit. The DPS considers revocations of state permits based on suitability in the absence of statutory definition, guidance, or coordination for determining who is a suitable person and who is not.

2. The “Suitability” Standard in General Statutes § 29-28(b) implicates a Core Second Amendment Right

The core Second Amendment right to self-defense by law-abiding citizens is implicated in the statutory “suitability” standard. The ten specific eligibility factors ensure that non-law-abiding citizens will not be issued permits to carry. If the ten factors do not include categories of individuals whom through democratically-elected representatives it is agreed should not be eligible to hold a state permit then the statute is subject to amendment by adding more specific, defined eligibility factors.

In Connecticut, under current law, an individual’s right to exercise the core Second Amendment right to bear arms in self-defense is based upon an entirely discretionary determination of "suitability" by law enforcement, the Board, and the state courts. If an individual does not meet all ten eligibility factors the prohibition on the right to carry a pistol or revolver is mandatory. If an individual does meet all ten eligibility factors whether or not he or she may lawfully carry a pistol or revolver is entirely discretionary.


3. The "Suitability" Standard is Constitutionally Invalid


In Count One, Goldberg asserts a Second Amendment constitutional challenge to the "suitability" standard in General Statutes § 29-28(b) as applied to him in the DPS’s determination to revoke his state permit when he was eligible under the law to hold a state permit. The Third and Fourth Circuits Court of appeals have adopted a two-part approach for determining the level of constitutional scrutiny to be afforded Second Amendment challenges. See U.S.A. v. Marzzarella, 614 F.3d 85 (3d Cir. 2010); U.S.A. v. Chester, 367 Fed.Appx. 392 (4th Cir. 2010). The first part of the inquiry asks whether the challenged law burdens or regulates conduct within the scope of the Second Amendment. In Heller the U.S. Supreme Court "concluded that the Second Amendment codified a pre-
existing ‘individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.’" Heller, 128 S.Ct. at 2797. The denial of a state permit in Connecticut deprives an individual of this pre-existing right codified in the Second Amendment to carry weapons in case of confrontation.

MORE WILL FOLLOW REGARDING THE RECENT FILINGS IN THE KUCK AND GOLDBERG CASES.

AT SOME POINT IN TIME THE NATION WILL BEGIN TO LOOK AT THESE TWO CASES WITH MORE UNDERSTANDING OF EXACTLY WHAT THEY ARE ABOUT.

I wish at the very least, the representative critters in Hartford would have an idea (you know, since they actually try to make legislation directed at these issues).

We need more people to actually read what is going on in these cases.

Jonathan

Words of Wisdom that may still be on point

In a Civil Rights Supreme Court case out of Maryland many years ago these words were memorialized in the decsion of the court. I believe they ring true today in the Second Amendment civil rights issues being addressed and litigated across the country.

"There is a school of thought that our adjudication of a constitutional issue should be delayed andpostponed as long as possible. That school has had many stout defenders and ingenious means have at times been used to avoid constitutional pronouncements.
Yet judge-made rules, fashioned to avoid decision of constitutional questions, largely forget what Chief Justice Marshall wrote in Fletcher v. Peck, 6 Cranch 87, 137—138, 3 L.Ed. 162:

'Whatever respect might have been felt for the state sovereignties, it is not to be
disguised that the framers of the constitution viewed, with some apprehension,
the violent acts which might grow out of the feelings of the moment; and that
the people of the United States, in adopting that instrument, have manifested a
determination to shield themselves and their property from the effects of those
sudden and strong passions to which men are exposed. The restrictions on the
legislative power of the states are obviously founded in this sentiment; and
the constitution of the United States contains what may be deemed a bill of
rights for the people of each state.'