i hope so... i have NYS issued CCW permit and it's no good in the rotten apple.
Posted on 06/19/2008 12:29:43 PM PDT by neverdem
City's Restrictions Described as 'Good Target' for Suit
If gun enthusiasts are victorious this month when the Supreme Court declares what rights exist under the Second Amendment, their next target may be New York City's strict gun control laws.
The federal high court may issue its historic decision on gun rights as early as today, and certainly by no later than month's end.
Obtaining a gun license in New York City is now a lengthy and costly endeavor. In the span of a decade, a New Yorker with a licensed handgun at home will pay more than $1,000 in fees.
Some of the obstacles facing prospective gun owners in the city may change if the Supreme Court rules that individuals have a constitutional right to keep a gun for protection.
"If there is an individual right, then bureaucratic discretion in permitting...,"
--snip--
Gun rights proponents interviewed cited two items in New York's gun control laws that would be especially vulnerable to legal challenge depending on the Supreme Court's ruling. One is a requirement that firearms generally be kept inoperable when not being handled. The other is a licensing fee of $340 that New Yorkers must pay every three years in order to keep a handgun at home or at a business.
"Does it constitute an infringement of an individual right guaranteed by the Bill of Rights to charge a citizen $340 every three years for exercising that right?" Mr. Brophy asked, adding that he believed it was an infringement. "You can't tax a right out of existence and call it a user fee," he said.
Mr. Feinblatt said that the licensing fee didn't raise an issue.
"Nobody who pays the fee likes to pay the fee, but there isn't a constitutional right not to have a fee," he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at nysun.com ...
If the Standing Constitutional Convention rules correctly, then all federal and State gun regulations will be challenged. The next issue will whether Second Amendment gets “incorporated”.
Kennedy’s siding with the infamous four on two recent SCOTUS decisions has me concerned.
The day the courts rule the Sullivan Laws unconstitutional, I will be doing a Mazurka through the streets.
LOL! If the Standing Constitutional Convention rules incorrectly, all bets are off. It will be interesting times if we have to start over again from scratch, to say the least.
That's all I had to read. I knew it was you.
This country is waaaay out of whack.
“Kennedy’s siding with the infamous four on two recent SCOTUS decisions has me concerned.”
You and me both.
I’ll see your Mazurka and raise you a Highland Schottische!
Gun enthusiasts know better than to bring a knife to a gun fight, yet they think they can bring a gun case to a legal fight and not lose a little.
There is no winning, no matter what SCOTUS rules. The Second Amendment can only be "interpreted" to its detriment. We'll see new gun control within the terms set down by the Supreme Court.
but but - wasnt that stimulus check enough to keep you happy ?
wait til bass season is over
I now think the odds of an overturn of the D.C. gun ban are less than 50%.
The LENGTH of time its taking for a decision on this issue is, in itself, ominous. It should have been a simple thing, based on the intial court hearing.
My guess is the Libs are trying to figure out some way to twist logic and reason and come out in support of Washington D.C. without looking like the total @$$e$ they are.
I don't. Grant new rights to terrorists by saying we must remain true to the Constitution, and then turn around and lessen a natural born citizen's right to self defense? That makes no sense. Kennedy's kick is broadening individual rights, not lessening them, according to Jan Crawford Greenberg, ABC legal analyst, IIRC. They won't touch other infringements with this case if they want to keep it simple. Incorporation would be a plus.
I hope they challenge Rhode Island’s draconian gun laws as well. You can’t even get a concealed weapons permit unless you present a “need” which apparently doesn’t include self-protection.
No it wasn’t. It took the 24th Amendment to the Constitution to make poll taxes unconstitutional.
i hope so... i have NYS issued CCW permit and it's no good in the rotten apple.
Mississippi’s also.
Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections
Held: A State's conditioning of the right to vote on the payment of a fee or tax violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Breedlove v. Suttle, supra, pro tanto overruled. Pp. 665-670.
It sure looks like Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections took care of Virginia's poll tax. The 24th took care of the rest.
See comment# 15.
Few people realize that what the Supreme Court decides really isn’t “law” as much as a strong suggestion.
The reason is that any subordinate judge can say that the new case he is hearing is just a *tad* different from the SCOTUS decision, but enough so he can make a wild ruling against what they said.
What this translates to is that courts, including the 9th Circuit, can make all kinds of wacky decisions, and they will be in force until the SCOTUS hears the case *again*.
This means that if the SCOTUS decides something is unconstitutional, then lower courts can blow off their decision for the better part of a decade. Then, when the SCOTUS rules a second time, they blow that ruling off again, and another decade passes before the SCOTUS rules again. Etc.
The 9th Circuit does this so frequently, that about 30 percent of the SCOTUS cases, and 30 percent of the reverses come from cases originating in that circuit.
And often, the cases are pretty much the same as what the SCOTUS has ruled on in the past. The 9th circuit just ignored them.
This will have a major impact on the 2nd Amendment case.
Whatever the court decides, DC will have gun control. If the court says the present law is unconstitutional, they’ll just write up one that doesn’t seem to conflict with the majority opinion. Then wait another 70 years and maybe another court will have a say about that.
“this month when the Supreme Court declares what rights exist under the Second Amendment,”
The simply written and terse 2nd Amendment used to do that itself.
Say goodbye to your guns and any other troublsome rights you may posess
Actually, I was surprised DC didn’t repeal the law.
It would have obviated the case.
I hope you are right but many concerned with civil liberties and individual rights also view the 2nd Amendment as an aberration and product of another, less civilized century, not a fundamental right.
Don't be so glum about Kennedy.
Souter and Ginsburg considered it an individual right in Muscarello.
Why is it that every illiterate in the third world has the right to and owns a gun, but here we have the right by way of our Constitution and but the states make every attempt to usurp that right?
Did you learn that in the Bronx? :)
Thanks for the ping!
Nah, from my Bapcie in Jersey. ;-)
Tell that to the BATFE in regards to the NFA Registry.
Is that like a "bushia"?
And did she make Czarnina?
Actually, I preferred her Makowiec, following sunday supper.
Can't find it anywhere in CT. There is a restaurant near where my parents live called "Warsaw Inn". It's strictly smargasbord style but is serves czarnina. My grandmother used to make it all the time. I loved it.
I never cared for the makowiec bread. I used to like the kolaczki though.
According to what I’ve read on the subject, the decision has already been made and was probably made within a couple of days of the hearing. The time has since been spent trying to write the opinion out in such a way as to make a very narrow legal statement.
I make fun of the SCOTUS from time to time but theirs is a very tough job. One that I would not want.
I don't think so.
Even liberal legal scholars have come to recognize that the Second Amendment is an individual right. Since the right pre-existed the Second Amendment, the right cannot be diminished by the amendment and will be found to include the right to self defense with arms.
What takes time is to fashion the decision that will serve the people of the United States.
An unnecessarily broad decision won't serve the people best, because the Supreme Court should not be in the business of anticipating litigation. For this reason, there will be an effort to tailor the decision as narrowly as possible while still addressing the question before the Court.
Another thing that doesn't serve the people well would be a decision by an unnecessarily narrow majority. If there is a 7-2 decision, or even a 9-0 decision, that addresses the issue before the Court properly, then that decision should be preferred to 5-4 decision that states more than is necessary to decide the case.
However, once a determination that, say, a 6-3 decision is possible, then there would need to be a discussion of how broad the decision should be. Making the narrowest possible decision wouldn't be the right decision, if a more generic guiding principle can be applied.
In other words, the Court would be justified in announcing a decision which applies to "arms" rather than just "handguns" if the principle that is being applied would apply to all arms. The Court would be justified in announcing a decision which addresses "keep" and "bear" rather than just "keep" if the principle being applied is the same.
If the Court finds that the Second Amendment protects a "fundamental" right, then it would be justified in announcing a decision which is consistent with recognizing such a right, even if that recognition is not required for this particular case.
The reason I state this is because it is not the Court's job to avoid making an important decision that is relevant to the case before it, simply because the case may be decided on some narrower grounds. Avoiding the larger issues simply causes the Court docket to fill with cases that should be decided, correctly, by lower courts.
The problem with the Heller case is that prior Supreme Courts have violated their oaths and permitted District Courts to make decision that are not in concert with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I personally hold all those earlier Courts responsible for the deaths of everyone who died at Waco. There should never have been an opportunity for the BATF to attempt to enforce unConstitutional victimless laws concerning militia-type firearms. Those prior Supreme Courts have just as much responsibility for those deaths as the jack-booted thugs in the BATF.
It remains to be seen whether this Supreme Court will accept its responsibility to prevent future massacres committed in the guise of "reasonable" gun control.
IIRC, the "Miller", decision was 9-0.
I'll take the right decision at 5-4 over the wrong one at 9-0. But of course you are right, the larger the majority, the less likely the decision will be overturned by a court with two or three Obama liberals or McCain "moderates" appointed to it.
IIRC the sections of the DC law concerning having a loaded long arm are also involved in the Heller case. If nothing else because DC brought them up.
I think you are correct. I don't believe that Heller himself made any claims regarding anything other than his handgun. It surpised me that DC was foolish enough to make a claim that having a trigger-locked (and thus unloaded) long gun is a suitable substitute for self-defense with a handgun.
This error on DC's part resulted in having the Supreme Court write their own "question" to be answered on appeal. The Supreme Court would otherwise have been limited to the scope of the lower court decision.
Assuming a proper decision from the Court, this allows them to consider the entire "scheme" of legislation enacted by DC and to recognize that it has nothing to do with outlawing dangerous handguns and everything to do with disarming law-abiding citizens in their own homes.
My hope is that the Roberts Court can issue a decision sufficiently broad to put us on the road to protecting the bearing of arms, not just the keeping; that the decision will enforce the high level of scrutiny demanded of a protection enumerated in the Bill of Rights; and that the decision will emphasize the "fundamental" nature of this right and its connection to self-defense such that lower courts will recognize their decision as "incorporation" without the necessity of waiting for a specific challenge to a state law.
It's a lot to ask for and I doubt that I will get everything I want, but I'm too old to wait another seventy years to fix this.
Try charging a "user fee" for a permit to have a printing press.
Hint: That was ruled unconstitutional long ago, as was a tax on newsprint or printers ink, unless part of a broader sales or excise tax.
Ammunition tax anyone?
We're talking about the Supreme Court breathing new life into a living document, or something like that. It doesn't have to make sense, neither of those other two rulings make sense either.
Hope you are right.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.