Posted on 07/15/2010 5:45:47 PM PDT by RKV
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.
COUNT I
U.S. CONST., AMEND. II, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
[NB: Section 1983 is against the suppression of civil rights under color of law. Big $$$$ if NY loses. Go Gura!]
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that judgment be entered in their favor and againstDefendants 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 noticeof 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;
A little information, please?
What case does this have to do with? Who is the plaintiff? Which specific law is he challenging? What is his standing?
The link has the data. Please read the complaint. The short version is that NY’s handgun carry laws (which require licensing) are under legal attack by Alan Gura in federal court.
The beauty of Heller (individual right) and McDonald (incorporation) is that we can now sue anywhere and set precident that affects everywhere.
I hope so. Fundamental right” which is McDonald’s language, hasn’t been turned into “strict scrutiny” yet. Soon I hope. It really can’t go any other way. Here’s a snippet from the DC Circuit in Heller 2 [Dick Heller goes back to court in DC cause the DC rules suck] ...
“this court joins numerous other courts in concluding that intermediate scrutiny is the appropriate standard of review ...As many courts have recognized, the Supreme Court did not explicitly hold that the Second Amendment right is a fundamental right,” [NB again this is all pre-McDonald]
“In sum, it is clear that the Framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty.” Opinion of the Court - McDonald majority
I need to go back and count how many times the Alito said “fundamental right” in McDonald - I bet it’s over 10.
No, we cannot:
We still need a plaintiff who can show him how an existing law affects him personally: someone who in New York City, for example, has tried to get a handgun ownership permit and who has been turned down.
No, we cannot:
We still need a plaintiff who can show him how an existing law affects him personally:
That’s an assummed part of my point.
Parker VS. Washington D.C.
Robert Levy
Heller VS. Washington D.C.
Robert Levy and the National Rifle Association
McDonald VS. Chicago
The Second Amendment Foundation and the National Rifle Association
Benson VS. Chicago
The National Rifle Association
Kachalsky VS. Cacace
The Second Amendment Foundation
During Heller, the goa was the only gun group to ask for the narrow view forcing the other gun groups to sue for every gun law on the books. During McDonald, the goa filed a brief that mentioned the NRA’s position nine times.
You forgot
Nordyke v. King
Sykes v. McGinness
Pena v. Cid
Jacobs v. Reed
Peterson v. LaCabe
Bateman v. Perdue
Hanson v. DC
Maloney v Rice and
State Ammunition Inc. v. Lindley
Oh yeah, and I forgot
Second Amendment Arms et al v. Chicago
We’re in for some litigation.
That said, the courts are going to try to judically nullify Heller and McDonald. Not unlike what happened to the 14th Amendment with Slaughter House and Presser. We need to keep the visibility up on the judges. Here’s a good spot to go to check out the landscape...
http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Main_Page
You will have no difficulty finding plaintiffs in New York City who were denied carry permits. The practice of the N.Y.P.D. is the definition of “arbitrary and capricious.” In a city where robberies and murders are often committed for a hundred bucks, the written standards for issuance of the N.Y.C. permit alone defy rational explanation. It will also be interesting to see the city try to justify one set of standards and permits for the five boroughs, although another set of standards and permits exists for the rest of the state.
And
Torraco v. Port Authority of NY
looks like a slam dunk from here. Guru is going to go down in the history books for the cases. He was denied by the 2nd circuit just before MacDonald came out and now go back to them and say Scotus says you were wrong. NY State’s handgun laws are about to fall within months since Guru has had this case sitting in his back pocket waiting to go
I think we are going to end up with state-wide presumption in every state meaning that all gun regs have to be the same state-wide. which will be a great thing.
Ah, the 2A returning to the "big apple"... bloomberg is probably crying in his Wheaties as we speak... So I'll have a smile on my face the whole day!
I love it... The 2A is gaining speed and you can bet the libs see the tidal wave coming, but there is no where to run... ;)
it’s ‘ole 2.5, the GOA hating NRA member…
Here is a thread where you spewed your typical, and not very enlightened rant, without listening to a word someone else says… Typical 2.5 whining rant about the GOA.
and here you are in another thread and using your typical whining rant with me… 2.5 gets the real facts and then gets caught in a couple of, well let’s say... factual distortions.
And yet again, after being confronted with facts defeating your position you continue to defend the indefensible.
So after getting your butt severely kicked to the curb many times, you continue to resort to distortions, twisting everyone’s words and in some cases; out right lying about your actions in an attempt to defend your pitifully weak bias.
Even so, I tried to reach out over a year after you told your usual fibs and help you see the error of your non-question, but you again went back to your old ways of unfairly attacking fellow 2A groups.
When you finally see your stands falling apart, you then stoop to a new low and start personally attacking people that disagree with your thoughts in the debate…2.5 attacks fellow FReepers that are engaged in the 2A discussion, and if that wasn’t bad enough, YOU ATTACKED THE WRONG PERSON! and again a couple of days later in another thread you again personally attacked fellow FReepers… 2.5 again attacks fellow FReepers that are engaged in a 2A discussion.
Many people have answered your questions and countered your stands in-numerous times… you just refuse to see it. Point is, if you can’t have an honest debate fighting a common enemy, then do everyone else a favor… stay on the sidelines and argue with yourself, don’t try to distort the focus of this fight.
Every 2A group, no matter what you may think of them should be WELCOMED to the struggle we are facing, many former NRA members, myself included, who definitely have no love for the NRA leadership have been going back into the group because the stakes are so high, don’t let your petty bias cloud the big picture.
AOV sends with warmest regards.
During Heller, the goa was the only gun group to ask for the narrow view forcing the other gun groups to sue for every gun law on the books. During McDonald, the goa filed a brief that mentioned the NRA’s position nine times.
Somewhere I saw a line that would be a GREAT bumper sticker: “Now is the time for all REAL Americans to put our 2nd Amendment FIRST!”
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.