View Single Post
Old October 2, 2011, 03:23 PM   #240
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,318
Originally posted September 6, 2011 by Al Norris:

I didn't have to read all 60 pages (although I did) to get to the straight-up answer.

Step 1: Define the core component of the right.

Quote:
The [Heller] Court held that the “ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does [the] prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense.” Id. at 635. Two years later, in McDonald v. City of Chicago, the Supreme Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause incorporates the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller, thereby extending that right as against the states. 130 S. Ct. at 3050.
Step 2: Define the complaint as outside the right.

Quote:
Neither the NYPL generally, nor Section 400.00(2)(f) specifically, completely bans the carrying of firearms. As discussed above, the statute provides for carry permits to be issued under several circumstances including, but not limited to, when an applicant can demonstrate proper cause. As the statute does not operate as a complete ban, the cases are inapposite.
Judge Siebel goes on to cite every instance of "in the home" from Heller and to call everything else in that decision, dicta.

That is the 2A 2-Step in action, even as Williams and Masciandaro are up for cert (which this court cites as agreeing with her).

Quote:
For the reasons stated above, I hereby DENY the State Defendants' and the County's Motions to Dismiss, DENY Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment, and GRANT the State Defendants' Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. Although the County has not cross-moved for summary judgment, I hereby GRANT it summary judgment sua sponte. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to terminate the pending motions, (Docs. 30, 33, 39,42), and close the case.
Sua sponte, because you simply refuse to hear anything else about this "supposed" right.

The case was Kachalsky v. Cacase, #17 on the hit parade. The opinion is here. Expect an immediate appeal.
Al Norris is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.04125 seconds with 7 queries