PDF Archive

Easily share your PDF documents with your contacts, on the Web and Social Networks.

Share a file Manage my documents Convert Recover PDF Search Help Contact



Shew v Malloy SCOTUS Petition .pdf


Original filename: Shew v Malloy SCOTUS Petition.pdf
Title: 263943_Cover.indd
Author: gbutson

This PDF 1.6 document has been generated by PScript5.dll Version 5.2.2 / Acrobat Distiller 10.1.16 (Windows), and has been sent on pdf-archive.com on 06/09/2016 at 21:09, from IP address 64.80.x.x. The current document download page has been viewed 265 times.
File size: 2.7 MB (486 pages).
Privacy: public file




Download original PDF file









Document preview


No. 15IN THE

Supreme Court of the United States
JUNE SHEW, et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
DANNEL P. MALLOY, et al.,
Respondents.
ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED
STATES COURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
BRIAN T. STAPLETON
MATTHEW S. LERNER
GOLDBERG SEGALLA LLP
11 Martine Avenue, Suite 705
White Plains, New York 10606
(914) 798-5400
STEPHEN P. HALBROOK
3925 Chain Bridge Road
Suite 403
Fairfax, Virginia 22030
(703) 352-7276

DAVID H. THOMPSON
Counsel of Record
PETER A. PATTERSON
JOHN D. OHLENDORF
COOPER & KIRK, PLLC
1523 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036
(202) 220-9600
dthompson@cooperkirk.com

Counsel for Petitioners
February 11, 2016
263943

A
(800) 274-3321 • (800) 359-6859

i
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
1. Whether a flat ban on possession of a class of
constitutionally protected firearms that includes the
most popular rifles in the Nation should be subject
merely to intermediate scrutiny, as the Second
Circuit concluded below, rather than being deemed
flatly unconstitutional under this Court’s decision in
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), or
subject to strict scrutiny, as the Fourth Circuit has
recently held.
2. Whether Connecticut’s flat ban on a class of
constitutionally protected firearms that includes the
most popular rifles in the Nation is an
unconstitutional infringement of the fundamental
right to keep and bear arms.

ii
PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING
Petitioners June Shew, Stephanie Cypher, Peter
Owens, Brian McClain, the Connecticut Citizens’
Defense League, the Coalition of Connecticut
Sportsmen, and MD Shooting Sports were plaintiffs
and appellants below. They were joined below by
three parties who do not join this petition: Rabbi
Mitchell Rocklin, Andrew Mueller, and Hiller Sports,
LLC.
Respondents Dannel P. Malloy, Kevin T. Kane,
Dora B. Schriro, David I. Cohen, John C. Smriga,
Maureen Platt, Kevin D. Lawlor, Michael
Dearington, Peter A. McShane, Michael L. Regan,
Patricia M. Froehlich, Gail P. Hardy, Brian Preleski,
David Shepack, Matthew C. Gedansky, and Stephen
J. Sedensky, III, were the defendants and appellees
below.
CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
The Connecticut Citizens’ Defense League has no
parent corporation, and no publicly held company
owns 10% or more of its stock.
The Coalition of Connecticut Sportsmen has no
parent corporation, and no publicly held company
owns 10% or more of its stock.
MD Shooting Sports has no parent corporation,
and no publicly held company owns 10% or more of
its stock.

iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
QUESTIONS PRESENTED.......................................... i
PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING ............................. ii
CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT ............. iii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ....................................... vii
OPINIONS BELOW ..................................................... 3
JURISDICTION ........................................................... 4
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS AND
STATUTES INVOLVED .............................................. 4
STATEMENT OF THE CASE ..................................... 4
I.

CONNECTICUT’S BAN ........................................... 4

II.

PARTIES AND PROCEEDINGS BELOW .................. 10

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT ................. 14
I.

REVIEW IS NEEDED BECAUSE THE COURTS OF
APPEALS ARE SPLIT OVER THE CORRECT WAY TO
ANALYZE BANS ON FIREARMS LIKE
CONNECTICUT’S. ................................................. 14

II.

REVIEW IS NEEDED BECAUSE THE SECOND
CIRCUIT’S DECISION IS FLATLY INCONSISTENT
WITH HELLER. ................................................... 21

iv
III.

REVIEW IS NEEDED BECAUSE THE SECOND
CIRCUIT’S TOOTHLESS APPLICATION OF
INTERMEDIATE SCRUTINY THREATENS TO
UNDERMINE THE PROTECTIONS PROVIDED
IN CONTEXTS OUTSIDE THE SECOND
AMENDMENT. .................................................... 23

CONCLUSION ........................................................... 35
APPENDIX
APPENDIX A — OPINION OF THE UNITED
STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
SECOND CIRCUIT, SHEW V. MALLOY,
NO. 14-319 (OCT. 19, 2015) ................................... 1a
APPENDIX B — OPINION OF THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT, SHEW V.
MALLOY, NO. 3:13-CV-00739 (JAN. 30,
2014) ...................................................................... 58a
APPENDIX C — DECISION AND ORDER OF
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW
YORK, NEW YORK STATE RIFLE &
PISTOL ASS’N V. CUOMO, NO. 1:13-CV00291 (DEC. 31, 2013) ........................................ 107a
APPENDIX D — CONSTITUTIONAL
PROVISIONS AND STATUTES INVOLVED
U.S. CONST. AMEND. II ................................ 173a
U.S. CONST. AMEND. XIV, § 1 ...................... 173a

v
CONN. GEN. STAT. §§ 53-202A
THROUGH -202F, -202H THROUGH 202I, -202M THROUGH -202O, AND 202W THROUGH 202-X ........................................ 173a
APPENDIX E — FIRST AMENDED
COMPLAINT, SHEW V. MALLOY, NO. 3:13CV-00739 (JUNE 11, 2013) ................................ 212a
APPENDIX F — DECLARATION OF GUY
ROSSI, DOC. 15-5, SHEW V. MALLOY, NO.
3:13-CV-00739 (JUNE 26, 2013) ........................ 280a
APPENDIX G — SUPPLEMENTAL
DECLARATION OF GUY ROSSI, DOC. 1111, SHEW V. MALLOY, NO. 3:13-CV-00739
(DEC. 10, 2013) ................................................... 303a
APPENDIX H — EXCERPTS FROM
NATIONAL SHOOTING SPORTS
FOUNDATION, MODERN SPORTING
RIFLE COMPREHENSIVE CONSUMER
REPORT, DOC. 15-2, SHEW V. MALLOY,
NO. 3:13-CV-00739 (JUNE 26, 2013) ................ 329a
APPENDIX I — EXCERPTS FROM JEFFREY
A. ROTH & CHRISTOPHER S. KOPER,
IMPACT EVALUATION OF THE PUBLIC
SAFETY AND RECREATIONAL
FIREARMS USE PROTECTION ACT OF
1994 (1997), DOC. 68.6, SHEW V. MALLOY,
NO. 3:13-CV-00739 (AUG. 23, 2013) ................. 337a

vi
APPENDIX J — EXCERPTS FROM
CHRISTOPHER S. KOPER, AN UPDATED
ASSESSMENT OF THE FEDERAL
ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN: IMPACT ON
GUN MARKETS AND GUN VIOLENCE,
1994–2003 (2004), DOC. 68-5, SHEW V.
MALLOY, NO. 3:13-CV-00739 (AUG. 23,
2013) .................................................................... 355a
APPENDIX K — DECLARATION OF MARK
OVERSTREET, DOC. 15-15, SHEW V.
MALLOY, NO. 3:13-CV-00739 (JUNE 26,
2013) .................................................................... 377a
APPENDIX L — EXCERPTS FROM
MICHAEL PLANTY & JENNIFER L.
TRUMAN, FIREARM VIOLENCE, 1993–
2011 (2013), DOC. 68-2, SHEW V. MALLOY,
NO. 3:13-CV-00739 (AUG. 23, 2013) ................. 385a
APPENDIX M — AFFIDAVIT OF
CHRISTOPHER S. KOPER, DOC. 80-1,
SHEW V. MALLOY, NO. 3:13-CV-00739
(OCT. 11, 2013) ................................................... 391a
APPENDIX N — EXCERPTS FROM
REDUCING GUN VIOLENCE IN
AMERICA: INFORMING POLICY WITH
EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS (DANIEL W.
WEBSTER & JON S. VERNICK EDS.,
(2013) ................................................................... 433a

vii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES

Page

Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 134 S. Ct.
2751 (2014) ....................................................... 32-33
California v. Carney, 471 U.S. 386 (1985) ................... 3
Center for Fair Pub. Policy v. Maricopa Cnty.,
336 F.3d 1153 (9th Cir. 2003) ............................... 25
Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Public Serv.
Comm’n of N.Y., 447 U.S. 557 (1980) ................... 16
City of Erie v. Pap’s A.M., 529 U.S. 277 (2000) ......... 33
City of Los Angeles v. Alameda Books, Inc., 535
U.S. 425 (2002) .......................................... 24, 25, 26
City of Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc., 475 U.S.
41 (1986) ................................................................ 25
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S.
570 (2008) .......................................................passim
Edenfeld v. Fane, 507 U.S. 761 (1993) ....................... 33
Ezell v. City of Chicago, 651 F.3d 684
(7th Cir. 2011) ....................................................... 34
Free Speech Coal., Inc. v. Holder, 957
F. Supp. 2d 564 (E.D. Pa. 2013)............................ 34
Friedman v. City of Highland Park, 784 F.3d 406
(7th Cir. 2015) ................................................passim
Heller v. District of Columbia, 801 F.3d 264
(D.C. Cir. 2015)...................................................... 26
Heller v. District of Columbia, 670 F.3d 1244
(D.C. Cir. 2011)...............................................passim

viii
Joelner v. Village of Washington Park, 378 F.3d
613 (7th Cir. 2004) ................................................ 25
Johnson v. Whitehead, 647 F.3d 120
(4th Cir. 2011) ....................................................... 34
Kachalsky v. County of Westchester, 701 F.3d 81
(2d Cir. 2012) ......................................................... 20
Kolbe v. Hogan, 2016 WL 425829
(4th Cir. 2016) ................................................passim
McCullen v. Coakley, 134 S. Ct. 2518 (2014) ....... 13, 32
McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742
(2010) ..............................................................passim
Michael M. v. Superior Court of Sonoma Cnty.,
450 U.S. 464 (1981) ............................................... 16
Moore v. Madigan, 702 F.3d 933 (7th Cir. 2012) ...... 20
New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Cuomo,
804 F.3d 242 (2d Cir. 2015)............................passim
New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Cuomo,
990 F. Supp. 2d 349 (W.D.N.Y. 2013)............... 4, 12
Peruta v. County of San Diego, 742 F.3d 1144
(9th Cir. 2014) ....................................................... 20
Planned Parenthood of Wis., Inc. v. Schimel,
806 F.3d 908 (7th Cir. 2015) ................................. 34
Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 135 S. Ct. 2218 (2015) ........ 16
Rostker v. Goldberg, 453 U.S. 57 (1981) .................... 34
San Francisco Arts & Athletics, Inc. v. United
States Olympic Comm., 483 U.S. 522 (1987)........ 34
Shew v. Malloy, 994 F. Supp. 2d 234
(D. Conn. 2014).................................................. 4, 12


Related documents


shew v malloy scotus petition
lacognata scotus as filed 28656 pdf black 1
us amicus brief
sc19950 taupier brief msb
ppink amicus brief
14 2985 complete opn


Related keywords