Just Joined

Ditto

Joined

Joined...

Bring this puppy to NJ as well!

RW3

Spread the "Word " Guys !!



Once we have enough members we will ask them to come to New Jersey





Remember this is a Civil Suit now and it  will cost $$$$$ to the Loser





From the NY Hometown Board





Gun Rights Legal Action

Index

• New York Lawsuit SAF Sues in New York to Void 'Good Cause' Carry Permit Requirement



• North Carolina Lawsuit SAF Sues to Overturn North Carolina's 'Emergency Powers' Gun Bans



• DC Handgun Carry Lawsuit SAF Sues District of Columbia over Carrying of Handguns



• Seattle Parks Gun Ban Lawsuit Gun Rights Organizations Win Lawsuit to Stop Seattle Ban



• CA Denial of Right Lawsuit SAF Challenges Arbitrary Denial of Right to Bear Arms in California



• CA Roster Lawsuit SAF Challenges California Handgun Ban Scheme



• DC Expat Lawsuit SAF Sues Eric Holder Over Gun Rights of Non-resident American Citizens



• DC Handgun Roster Lawsuit SAF Challenges D.C. Handgun Ban Scheme



• WA Alien Resident Lawsuit SAF, NRA Sue Washington State for Discriminating Against Alien Residents



• Hayes Lawsuit SAF Files Amicus Brief in Hayes Case



• Nordyke Lawsuit SAF Files Amicus Brief in Nordyke Case Seeking 2nd Amendment Incorporation



• Chicago Gun Ban SAF Files Lawsuit Challenging Chicago's Handgun Ban



• DC Gun Ban SAF Files Amici Curiae Brief in Lawsuit; DC Gun Ban Ruled Unconstitutional



• San Francisco Gun Ban SAF Sues to Overturn San Francisco Gun Ban



• New Orleans Gun Grab Lawsuit SAF Stops New Orleans Gun Confiscation



• Washington State Library Lawsuit SAF Sues Library System Over Internet Censorship of Gun Websites



• Texas 'Sporting Purposes' Lawsuit SAF Files Texas Lawsuit Defending the Gun Rights of Citizens Living Abroad, Challenges 'Sporting Purpose' Restriction



• Ohio 'Sporting Purposes' Lawsuit SAF Files Ohio Lawsuit Defending the Gun Rights of Citizens Living Abroad, Challenges 'Sporting Purpose' Restriction

Also joined!

Thanks Iggy

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

WHITE PLAINS DIVISION

ALAN KACHALSKY, CHRISTINA NIKOLOV, and : Case No.

SECOND AMENDMENT FOUNDATION, INC., :

:

Plaintiffs, :

:

v. :

:

:

SUSAN CACACE, JEFFREY A. COHEN, and :

COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER, :

:

Defendants. :

:

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––X

COMPLAINT

COME NOW

the Plaintiffs, Alan Kachalsky, Christina Nikolov, and Second Amendment

Foundation, Inc., by and through undersigned counsel, and complain of the defendants as follows:

THE PARTIES

1. Plaintiff Alan Kachalsky is a natural person and a citizen of the United States and

of the State of New York. Kachalsky resides in Westchester County.

2. Plaintiff Christina Nikolov is a natural person and a citizen of the United States and

of the State of New York. Nikolov resides in Westchester County

3. Plaintiff Second Amendment Foundation, Inc. ("SAF”) is a non-profit membership

organization incorporated under the laws of Washington with its principal place of business in

Bellevue, Washington. SAF has over 650,000 members and supporters nationwide, including

Westchester County, New York. The purposes of SAF include promoting the exercise of the right

to keep and bear arms; and education, research, publishing and legal action focusing on the

Constitutional right to privately own and possess firearms, and the consequences of gun control.

SAF brings this action on behalf of itself and its members.

4. Defendant Susan Cacace was at all relevant times a handgun carry permit licensing

officer for defendant Westchester County. Defendant Cacace is responsible for executing and

administering the laws, customs, practices, and policies at issue in this lawsuit; has enforced the

challenged laws, customs and practices against plaintiff Kachalsky and plaintiff SAF’s

membership, and is in fact presently enforcing the challenged laws, customs and practices against

plaintiffs’ interests. Defendant Cacace is sued in her capacity as licensing officer.

5 Defendant Jeffrey A. Cohen was at all relevant times a handgun carry permit

licensing officer for defendant Westchester County. Defendant Cohen is responsible for executing

and administering the laws, customs, practices, and policies at issue in this lawsuit; has enforced

the challenged laws, customs and practices against plaintiff Nikolov and plaintiff SAF’s

membership, and is in fact presently enforcing the challenged laws, customs and practices against

plaintiffs’ interests. Defendant Cohen is sued in his capacity as licensing officer.

6. Defendant County of Westchester is a governmental entity organized under the

Constitution and laws of the State of New York, possessing legal personhood within the meaning

of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The County, by and through its Department of Public Safety, Pistol

Licensing Unit, is responsible for executing and administering the laws, customs, practices, and

policies at issue in this lawsuit; has enforced the challenged laws, customs and practices against

plaintiff Kachalsky, plaintiff Nikolov, and plaintiff SAF’s membership, and is in fact presently

enforcing the challenged laws, customs and practices against plaintiffs’ interests.

2

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

7. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§§ 1331, 1343, 2201, 2202 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

8. Venue lies in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

9. The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution provides: "A well

regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and

bear Arms shall not be infringed.”

10. The Second Amendment guarantees individuals a fundamental right to carry

functional handguns in non-sensitive public places for purposes of self-defense.

11. The States and their units of local government are bound to respect Second

Amendment rights by operation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

12. The States retain the ability to regulate the manner of carrying handguns, prohibit

the carrying of handguns in specific, narrowly defined sensitive places, prohibit the carrying of

arms that are not within the scope of Second Amendment protection, and disqualify specific,

particularly dangerous individuals from carrying handguns.

13. The States may not completely ban the carrying of handguns for self-defense, deny

individuals the right to carry handguns in non-sensitive places, deprive individuals of the right to

carry handguns in an arbitrary and capricious manner, or impose regulations on the right to carry

handguns that are inconsistent with the Second Amendment.

3

14.New York Penal Code § 265.01(1) prohibits the possession of firearms. A

violation of this provision constitutes "Criminal Possession of a Firearm in the Fourth Degree,” a

class A misdemeanor.

15. New York Penal Code § 265.03(3) provides that possession of a loaded firearm

outside one’s home or place of business constitutes "Criminal Possession of a Firearm in the

Second Degree,” a class C felony.

16. The prohibitions of sections 265.01(1) and 265.03(3) do not apply to the

"[p]ossession of a pistol or revolver by a person to whom a license therefor has been issued as

provided under section 400.00 or 400.01.” New York Penal Code § 265.20.

17. For most civilians who are not otherwise barred from possessing and carrying

weapons, the only permit to carry handguns in public for self-defense is a permit "to have and

carry concealed, without regard to employment or place of possession, by any person when

proper cause exists for the issuance thereof,” pursuant to New York Penal Code § 400.00(2)(f).

18. Plaintiffs Alan Kachalsky, Christina Nikolov, and the members and supporters of

plaintiff SAF, would carry functional handguns in public for self-defense, but refrain from doing

so because they fear arrest, prosecution, fine, and imprisonment for lack of a license to carry a

handgun.

19. Plaintiffs Alan Kachalsky and Christina Nikolov are fully qualified to obtain a

license to carry a handgun under New York Penal Code § 400.00(1), in that each (a) is over 21

years old, (b) of good moral character, (c) has never been convicted of a felony or serious crime,

(d) has never been mentally ill or confined to any institution, (e) has not had a license revoked or

4

been the subject of a family court order, (f) has completed a firearms safety course, and (g) should

not be denied a permit for any good cause.

20. Defendants maintain a strict policy of denying handgun carry license applications

where the applicants cannot affirmatively demonstrate a unique and personal need for self-defense

distinguishable from that of the general public. Plaintiffs Kachalsky and Nikolov, and the members

and supporters of plaintiff SAF, cannot meet this standard as it is applied by the defendants.

21. Plaintiff Alan Kachalsky applied for a handgun carry license pursuant to New York

Penal Code § 400.00. Defendant Westchester County recommended that the permit be denied. On

or about October 8, 2008, Defendant Cacace denied Kachalsky’s permit application, offering that

Kachalsky "has not stated any facts which would demonstrate a need for self protection

distinguishable from that of the general public.” Accordingly, Defendant Cacace found Kachalsky

did not satisfy the requirement of New York Penal Code § 400.00(2)(f) that "proper cause” be

shown for issuance of the permit.

22. Plaintiff Kachalsky appealed the permit denial to the Appellate Division of the

Supreme Court of the State of New York, pursuant to Article 78 of the New York Code of Civil

Practice Law and Rules. On September 8, 2009, the Appellate Division held that Defendant

Cacace’s "determination was not arbitrary or capricious and should not be disturbed.”

23. On February 16, 2010, the New York Court of Appeals dismissed Kachalsky’s

appeal on the grounds that it presented no substantial constitutional question. At the time of this

decision, it was not a holding of any federal appellate circuit that the States were bound to respect

Second Amendment rights. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit had held that the Second

5

Amendment did not apply to the States. On June 28, 2010, the Supreme Court held that the

Fourteenth Amendment does incorporate and apply the Second Amendment against the States.

24. Plaintiff Kachalsky would apply again for a handgun carry license, but refrains

from doing so because any such application would be a futile act. He cannot satisfy the good

cause standard, which has already been applied to him.

25. Plaintiff Christina Nikolov applied for a handgun carry license pursuant to New

York Penal Code § 400.00. On or about October 1, 2009, Defendant Cohen denied Nikolov’s

permit application, offering that "conspicuously absent” from Defendant County’s background

investigation report of Plaintiff Nikolov "is the report of any type of threat to her own safety

anywhere.” Defendant Cohen continued: "[I]t cannot be said that the applicant has demonstrated

that she has a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general public;

therefore, her application for a firearm license for a full carry permit must be denied.”

Accordingly, Defendant Cohen found Nikolov did not satisfy the requirement of New York Penal

Code § 400.00(2)(f) that "proper cause” be shown for issuance of the permit.

COUNT I

U.S. CONST., AMEND. II, 42 U.S.C. § 1983

AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS

26. Paragraphs 1 through 25 are incorporated as though fully stated herein.

27 Individuals cannot be required to prove their "good cause” for the exercise of

fundamental constitutional rights, including the right to keep and bear arms.

28. Individuals cannot be required to demonstrate any unique, heightened need for

self-defense apart from the general public in order to exercise the right to keep and bear arms.

6

29. New York Penal Code § 400.00(2)(f)’s requirement that handgun carry permit

applicants demonstrate good cause for the issuance of a permit, violates the Second Amendment

to the United States Constitution, facially and as applied against Kachalsky, Nikolov and SAF’s

members and supporters, damaging them in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiffs are therefore

entitled to permanent injunctive relief against the enforcement of this provision.

COUNT II

U.S. CONST., AMEND. XIV, EQUAL PROTECTION, 42 U.S.C. § 1983

AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS

30. Paragraphs 1 through 29 are incorporated as though fully stated herein.

31 New York Penal Code § 400.00(2)(f)’s requirement that handgun carry permit

applicants demonstrate cause for the issuance of a permit violates Plaintiffs’ Fourteenth

Amendment right to equal protection of the law, damaging them in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to permanent injunctive relief against the enforcement of this

provision.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that judgment be entered in their favor and against

Defendants as follows:

1. An order permanently enjoining defendants, their officers, agents, servants,

employees, and all persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice

of the injunction, from enforcing N.Y. Penal Code § 400.00(2)(f)’s good cause requirement;

2. An order commanding Defendants to issue Plaintiffs Kachalsky and Nikolov

permits to carry a handgun;

3. Costs of suit, including attorney fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988;

7

4. Declaratory relief consistent with the injunction; and

5. Any other further relief as the Court deems just and appropriate.

Dated: July 14, 2010 Respectfully submitted,

Alan Gura* Vincent Gelardi

Gura & Possessky, PLLC Gelardi & Randazzo

101 N. Columbus Street, Suite 405 800 Westchester Avenue, Suite S-608

Alexandria, VA 22314 Rye Brook, NY 10573

703.835.9085/Fax 703.997.7665 914.251.9603/Fax 914.253.0909

Lead Counsel Local Counsel

*Motion for admission pro hac vice

forthcoming

By: ___________________________

Vincent Gelardi

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

DONE - another lifetime member who will hang on the same tree.

FUBO.

I have finally did it. I have been wanting to sign up and support SAF for a few years now, but I have been sending my money to the NRA, but they have been a disappointment as far as NJ is concerned, perhaps it was time to give someone else a shot of my hard earned money. Thanks Iggy for the nudge

Done

Guys :



Do not thank me just sign up and get your friends to sign up .



We need to get the SAF Membership in NJ up!!

No thanks to Iggy (as requested) for bringing this to my attention. $ being sent.

I joined.

Man oh man, every time I log into arfcom my wallet gets lighter!
Money well spent in my opinion especially if "justifiable need" goes the way of Corslime.

Just joined as life member and donated.  We need all the help we can get in NJ to keep our rights.

Thanks to everyone who joined and/or donated to the cause. In NYS after 100 + years of racially motivated anti-gun laws enacted into law by corrupt NYC politicians  we now have the legal basis to overturn these or similar  laws on constitutional grounds in states like NY and NJ.



Keep in mind that Robert Levy and Alan Gura invested approx. three million dollars of their own money to finance the Heller v. DC lawsuit. Now it's time for us to support Alan Gura, Steve Levy and SAF as they systematically work to dismantle anti-gun laws throughout the U.S.

Don't you mean to get them back?

Gura sure isn't wasting anytime. Read the complaint here.

Bump from another new life member

Joined

Bumping - another Life Member

bump...

another member of the 'defenders club'.

let's bring the fight to NJ.

I guess I can join an use my old NJ address, since I still own the property, and the mail get forwarded.

Bump



Please join!!!

An email I got the other day.  I'm sure not everyone here get email alerts from NJCSD.

Common people lets keep the momentum up. Drop that beer, join and or donate!!!


OK - don't drop the BEER!

New Life member here...

A favorable ruling in this lawsuit could be beneficial to range operator's and gun owner's in NJ.
http://saf.org/default.asp?p=legalaction#ny-lawsuit

SAF Sues Chicago Over Gun Range Prohibition On 1A, 2A Grounds

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) today filed a
lawsuit in federal court against the City of Chicago's new gun
ordinance, asserting that "by banning gun ranges open to the
public…under color of law," the city is depriving citizens of their
right to keep and bear arms in violation of the Second Amendment to the
U.S. Constitution.

• Complaint (pdf)(573 Kb)




• Preliminary Injunction (pdf)(117 Kb)




• Brown Declaration (pdf)(692 Kb)




• Ezell Declaration (pdf)(66 Kb)




• Hart Declaration (pdf)(330 Kb)




• Hespen Declaration (pdf)(65 Kb)

Another SAF lawsuit that could eventually benefit NJ gun owner's:





SAF Sues in Maryland Over Handgun Permit Denial




       

The Second Amendment Foundation and a Baltimore
County, MD man today sued Maryland authorities in federal court because
the man's handgun permit renewal was turned down on the grounds that he
could not demonstrate "a reasonable precaution against apprehended
danger."

       

Read the release announcing the lawsuit.

       

Read more and download case filings

       



 
 

Just joined also.

I too feel the NRA has done little in helping NJ.

Hopefully the SAF can help us acquire CCW in our state.

Between Kachalsky, Woollard, Sykes, and Palmer, there will be an abundance of precedent by the time the NJ case gets up the ladder to strike down Burton v. Sills.  In fact, the McDonald and Heller cases by themselves are alone to do it, but this case specifically will tell NJ that "This means YOU."  Very much looking forward to the results, which can't come a day too soon.

We need to keep up the positive attitude and posts there are allot of young people that need to think that this fight is worth fighting. Im making a donation today Thanks for keeping us informed iggy.

New Life member here...

Please do not thank me, I am just a conduit for the information.



Please join the SAF and the  NJCSD



http://www.njcsd.org/joomla/

I have to say the plaque is nicer than anything I ever received from the NRA.

Both the NRA and SAF/Alan Gura filed briefs in the ongoing Nordyke case.
This is another very important case that if successful will eventually
benefit NJ gun owner's.
http://saf.org/default.asp?p=legalaction#nordyke-lawsuit

SAF Files Amicus Brief in Nordyke Case, Argues For Strict Scrutiny

The Second Amendment Foundation has filed an amicus
curiae brief in the long-running Nordyke v. King case in California,
arguing that Second Amendment issues must be decided on a "strict
scrutiny" basis, and that an ordinance in Alameda County banning gun
shows at the county fairgrounds is unconstitutional because it would not
withstand that standard of review.

Read the release announcing the Incorporation amicus.

Read the release announcing the Strict Scrutiny amicus.

Click the links below to read the lawsuit filings.

• Incorporation Amicus (pdf)(168 KiB)



• Strict Scrutiny Amicus (pdf)(172 KiB

http://www.calgunlaws.com/
MULTIPLE LEGAL
BRIEFS FILED IN NORDYKE v. ALAMEDA; NINTH CIRCUIT CASE MAY DETERMINE
THE STANDARD OF REVIEW FOR SCRUTINIZING LAWS FACING SECOND AMENDMENT
CHALLENGES

• Amicus Brief of the CRPA Foundation;



• Amicus Brief of the NRA;

 

Daley, council's childish arrogance at root of follow-up lawsuits By Alan Gottlieb Whatever spin Chicago Mayor Richard Daley and the city council wish to offer, it is their stubborn arrogance that has resulted in more gun rights lawsuits filed against the city following the Supreme Court's June 28 ruling in McDonald v. City of Chicago that essentially nullified the city's 28-year handgun ban. The McDonald case - brought by the Second Amendment Foundation and Illinois State Rifle Association with four Chicago residents - resulted in a landmark ruling that incorporated the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms to the states via the 14th Amendment. SAF and ISRA have now been joined by Action Target, Inc., and two local residents, Rhonda Ezell and Joseph I. Brown to challenge the city's new gun ordinance, which appears to have been written to purposely provoke more lawsuits. The city's childish stubbornness is going to cost taxpayers a small fortune. Mayor Daley and his anti-gun city council adopted what amounts to a "tantrum ordinance" that essentially spits in the high court's face. Sure, the city adopted an ordinance that - at least on paper - allows Chicago residents to own a handgun, but in reality, it is one huge "Catch 22" that was deliberately crafted to discourage residents from exercising their Second Amendment rights. The city's handgun law requires prospective gun owners to undergo training, including at least one hour of actual time on a gun range. However, the ordinance prohibits the operation of gun stores and ranges inside city limits. Additionally, the city requires would-be Chicago gun owners to first obtain a Chicago Firearms Permit (CFP), and an application for that document requires an affidavit signed by a firearm instructor certified by the State of Illinois. Instructors cannot teach those courses anywhere inside the city because there is no place to conduct that training. Earlier, the Illinois Association of Firearms retailers and a north suburban gun shop operator sued the city over this ordinance. Now, SAF, ISRA and ATI have brought legal action. Action Target is a Delaware-based company that designs and builds gun ranges, including one in Chicago, in the Federal Reserve Bank building, for use by law enforcement. The company wants to build a gun range in the city for private citizens, but the city's ordinance makes that impossible. This sort of thing may be "politics as usual" in the Windy City, but it does not pass the smell test anywhere else. It sends a signal that Chicago authorities believe they are above the Constitution and the rule of law as defined by the Supreme Court. It's the kind of attitude one sees in a schoolyard bully, suggesting that Mayor Daley and his council cronies are in desperate need of adult supervision. Perhaps when Mayor Daley was a child, he became accustomed to taking his ball and going home when things did not go his way on the playfield. Since he evidently has never grown up, he believes this conduct is still acceptable in an adult world. The citizens of Chicago have tolerated his juvenile delinquency but that doesn't mean the rest of the country needs to. Chicago's ridiculous gun law is proof positive that the city administration does not take the Supreme Court ruling seriously. The time has come to change that, and that will require the federal courts to spank the city again, since nothing else seems to get the city's attention. Alan Gottlieb is founder and executive vice president of the Second Amendment Foundation, and co-author of "These Dogs Don't Hunt: The Democrats' War on Guns."

I'ts time for the congress to pass a bill requiring alll state and local governments to follow federal laws when it comes to firearms , that will put and end to all this. I think this new congress just might.

Hope they can pass it with a 2/3 vote because bo won't sign it.

Sure he will.  Just attach it to another stimulus/healthcare/credit card spending bill.  That's how we got Nat'l Park carry back...

Md. crime victim sues over denial to renew permit to carry concealed handgun



By Fredrick Kunkle

Washington Post Staff Writer

Sunday, August 15, 2010



On a snowy Christmas Eve a few years ago, Raymond E. Woollard was watching television with his family when he heard someone tapping at the windows of his Baltimore County farmhouse.



It was not Santa.



At the sound of breaking glass, Woollard dashed to his bedroom for a shotgun, and the holiday evening quickly became one of the most frightening nights of his life.



There was a hand-to-hand struggle for the weapon, but Woollard, with help from his adult son, eventually subdued the 6-foot-2, 155-pound intruder at gunpoint. Then they waited for more than an hour for police to find their way, on icy back roads, to the home, about 25 miles south of the Pennsylvania border.



That night made Woollard a crime victim for the first time in his life and also one of a select few Maryland residents to receive a license to carry a concealed handgun. But to Woollard's surprise, Maryland State Police denied his request last year to renew the permit, saying they thought the danger to his life had passed.



The agency said it was "because I hadn't been attacked" again, Woollard said in an interview. "They said, 'If you have any problems, you let us know.' "



Instead, Woollard filed a federal lawsuit July 29 to get his permit back, becoming the first person to challenge Maryland's gun control laws in the wake of two landmark Supreme Court decisions that have recalibrated the battle over gun rights and opened the doors to such challenges nationwide. The first, District of Columbia v. Heller, recognized individuals' Second Amendment right to own firearms and struck down the federal city's 32-year-old ban on handguns; the second, McDonald v. Chicago, held that the right also applies to other state and local governments.



Woollard, 62, of the Hampstead area, contends that the right to bear a firearm for self-defense is so paramount that a state agency should not be able to arbitrarily deny it.



"It's up to me. Do you have to show a reason to have a driver's license?" Woollard said. Under current law, the only people likely to carry guns are criminals who do not follow the law anyway, Woollard said. "And the police, as good as they are, show up after the fact."



After the 2002 break-in, Woollard said, he and his family waited 2 1/2 hours for police to arrive. Cpl. Michael Hill, a Baltimore County police spokesman, said records show that the 911 call came in at 9:52 p.m. and that because of icy roads, holiday staffing and the rural location, officers did not arrive until about 11.



The Second Amendment Foundation, a Bellevue, Wash.-based nonprofit group that was a plaintiff in McDonald v. Chicago has joined Woollard's lawsuit against the state police and the Maryland Handgun Permit Review Board. The lawsuit says that people should not have to prove "a good and substantial reason," as required by Maryland law, to exercise a fundamental constitutional right.



"I think that what's going to happen now is, we're going to start to test where these boundaries lie in what is a 'reasonable' and an 'unreasonable' regulation," said Dave Workman, a spokesman for the Second Amendment Foundation, which is challenging similar discretionary regulations in New York and North Carolina.



CeaseFire Maryland, a nonprofit group that advocates for gun control, brushed off the challenge.



"Good luck to him," spokesman Casey Anderson said. "I would have a hard time imagining that the Supreme Court is going to say you have a constitutional right to hide a firearm on your person."



Elena Russo, a state police spokeswoman, said the agency could not discuss a pending lawsuit.



In 2002, there were 4,405 Maryland residents with active permits to carry concealed handguns. As of July 31 this year, there are 47,471 active concealed-carry permits. In Virginia, there are more than 228,000.



A private person



Woollard is an unlikely person to become the face of a resurgent gun rights movement. The Navy veteran is an electrician and works for a government contractor in Baltimore, and he said he never gave much thought to using guns for personal protection until the break-in. He said the Remington 12-gauge shotgun he used against the intruder had only been used to hunt deer and smaller game.



His neighbors along Saint Abrahams Court describe him as private. Several said they have heard him shoot targets more often than they have heard him talk. Another said Woollard rigged a motion detector on his driveway, which snakes off the hard road for nearly a mile through fields and past a deer stand and a pond.



But he's not reclusive. Several neighbors said Woollard took part in a neighborhood campaign organized by the Prettyboy Watershed Preservation Society to block Loyola College's plan to build a retreat near their properties. Robin VandeWater, 49, said Woollard called her recently to spread the word that a coyote had been spotted near their homes.



In a phone interview the day after the lawsuit was filed, Woollard described a furious struggle with the Christmas Eve intruder, saying that the man had grabbed Woollard's shotgun, causing it to tumble down some stairs. Woollard's son, Bradley, then 25, got another shotgun and helped subdue the intruder.



Woollard, who said he has not had so much as a traffic violation since 1965, said he did not know the intruder. He described him as "some kind of nut" and declined to identify him. His lawsuit does not identify the intruder, but it says he has been released from prison and lives three miles from Woollard's home.



A family connection



Court records show that the man who broke in nearly eight years ago was Woollard's son-in-law, Kris Lee Abbott, 40, who has a history of depression, drug and alcohol abuse, and domestic violence.



After pleading guilty to third-degree burglary in the break-in, Abbott received an 18-month suspended sentence and three years' probation.



Court records show that his probation was terminated unsatisfactorily and that he was sent to jail after a series of violations, including a burglary in Carroll County and a violent confrontation with police in Baltimore County.



After the break-in, Woollard obtained a two-year permit to carry his .38-caliber Smith & Wesson revolver. The permit was renewed in 2005.



When he attempted to renew it again, Woollard said he was told that he had failed to show evidence of "apprehended fear," such as police reports indicating that he had been subjected to threats or harassment. The state police denied his application April 1, 2009. The Handgun Permit Review Board upheld the denial in November.



Asked about denying that he knew the intruder, Woollard said he was trying to protect his daughter. "This is about me being denied my permit," Woollard said. "It's not about my family, or my parents, or whoever was there that night."

SAN FRANCISCO FLIPS TRANSIT POLICY; AD PROMOTES GUN RIGHTS CONFERENCE BELLEVUE, WA - More than 15 huge advertisements promoting the 25th annual Gun Rights Policy Conference are up at prominent transit locations around the City of San Francisco, amounting to something of a coup for the Second Amendment Foundation. You can see the ad that San Francisco MTA waved their anti-gun policy and allowed to run in order to avoid being sued at www.saf.org/SF-MTA_Ad.pdf. SAF Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb, looking ahead eagerly to the Sept. 24-26 milestone conference, noted that the advertisements show a woman holding a shotgun and staring through a curtain, under the headline, "A violent criminal is breaking through your front door. Can you afford to be unarmed?" Gottlieb noted that the CalGuns Foundation assisted in the advertisement's preparation. The silver anniversary conference will be held at the Hyatt Regency San Francisco Airport. Gun rights activists and leaders from across the nation will attend. What is remarkable about the advertisement is that it appears the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency has violated its own guidelines, which prohibit advertising that "appears to promote the use of firearms." The MTA recently caused a flap by doctoring movie posters for a Will Farrell-Mark Wahlberg movie called "The Other Guys," removing handguns from the actors' hands and replacing them with a can of mace, a badge or just bare fists. "We take this annual conference around the country," Gottlieb said, "to areas where our rights might be threatened. We're holding it in San Francisco this year because SAF was successful in overturning the city's 2005 handgun ban. Next year, we're holding it in Chicago, where SAF's lawsuit in McDonald v. City of Chicago led to the Supreme Court's ruling in June that applies the Second Amendment to the states. "We suspect the MTA is allowing our ads in San Francisco despite their policy because they believed we were prepared to file a lawsuit on First and Second Amendment grounds if, for any reason, the city didn't take them," Gottlieb stated. "Knowing we were responsible for the McDonald victory over Chicago and the defeat of their own 2005 gun ban proposition, and probably aware of our litigation in New York, Maryland, North Carolina, Illinois and California, they did not want to lock horns with us again."

Sounds like slow progress.