|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
March 17, 2013, 08:26 PM | #51 |
Member
Join Date: October 16, 2012
Posts: 69
|
Perfect Thanks
|
March 18, 2013, 02:28 PM | #52 |
Member
Join Date: October 16, 2012
Posts: 69
|
BTW, the Judges here in Kwong are Judges: Jose A. Cabranes (appt. 94), Ralph Winter (appt 81) and John Walker (appt 94). Cabranes and Winter are both on senior status, Walker is still active and thus presided. These are all very reputable judges.
02/01/2013 81 CASE, before JAC*, JMW, RCW, C.JJ., HEARD.[833908] [12-1578] |
March 19, 2013, 02:32 PM | #53 |
Member
Join Date: June 19, 2007
Location: NYC
Posts: 39
|
Didn't listen to the tapes but can someone tell me what was the outcome of the hearing? I'm very curious since we have to pay $400 iirc every 3 years for me, another fee for my wife and one for my long guns. It'd be nice not to pay that going forward. Thanks in advance!
|
March 19, 2013, 04:13 PM | #54 |
Member
Join Date: October 16, 2012
Posts: 69
|
No result yet. look for a decision in 3 months or so.
|
March 19, 2013, 04:22 PM | #55 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 17, 2012
Posts: 228
|
Just as in the NJ CCW case, the judges are asking if the logic behind the law was nothing more than an attempt at restricting the right, and in this case keeping the poor from owning firearms. A statement from the law that passed in 1947(from the bill's sponsor): Another reason for the institution of this bill is the feeling that a
higher fee, if the City Council considers it wise to impose same, will tend to discourage a great number of possible applicants who are better off, both as concerns themselves and the welfare of this City as a whole, without the possession of fire-arms. In this way the additional fee as well as covering the costs of investigation, thereby insuring their continued high caliber, would, of itself, eliminate a certain percentage of applications, principally in that class where the possession of fire-arms is desired for reasons of bravado and like dangerous reasons. |
March 19, 2013, 04:36 PM | #56 |
Member
Join Date: June 19, 2007
Location: NYC
Posts: 39
|
Thanks for the summary!
|
July 9, 2013, 02:35 PM | #57 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
In other news today, the CA2 has upheld the district court and says that the licensing scheme of NYC does not burden the 2A and that the City is allowed to recoup all costs of administering its licensing scheme.
The majority opinion used rational basis while the concurring opinion used "intermediate scrutiny." The implications of this opinion are outrageous... Apply this to a scheme of voter licensing and registration. |
July 9, 2013, 04:30 PM | #58 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 17, 2012
Posts: 228
|
This opinion is an absolute disgrace. They almost seemed as if any fee would be acceptable as long as the plaintiffs paid it. Of course, you can be sure these same judges would also say someone who couldn't pay it wouldn't have standing to sue. The Federal courts, save CA7, are actively engaged in trying to smother the 2A.
|
July 9, 2013, 04:30 PM | #59 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 3,078
|
They keep repeating that the $340 fee doesn't exceed NYC's administration costs - but never ask the question why the NYC administration costs are 100 times higher than other parts of New York state.
|
July 24, 2013, 08:47 AM | #60 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Yesterday, 23 July, David Jensen filed a petition for rehearing and en banc hearing. The petition is very good, but don't expect the petition to be granted. This is preparatory to filing a petition for a grant of cert at the SCOTUS.
The petition includes the panel decision, only the first 19 PDF pages are the actual petition. |
September 21, 2013, 10:34 PM | #61 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
The request for rehearing has been denied.
Thanks to esqappellate at MDShooters for this. |
September 22, 2013, 08:01 AM | #62 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 17, 2012
Posts: 228
|
This leaves a pretty dangerous precedent. Now a locality can make an inefficient, burdensome permit system and charge thousands of dollars per year, and its just fine by CA2. What a joke that court is. I hope they get cert but I'm not holding me breath.
|
September 22, 2013, 08:13 AM | #63 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 5, 2010
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 358
|
100% goes to the NY pension fund
Sounds like a forced contribution but a contribution none the less.
At the very least, could they deduct it from their IRS/state taxes?
__________________
L2R |
November 24, 2013, 07:50 AM | #64 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 389
|
Some time has gone by and I haven't heard news of a writ of certiorari.
Jensen has until December 20th -23rd (somewhere in there) to file an appeal right? Is there any indication that David Jensen will appeal? |
November 24, 2013, 03:56 PM | #65 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
To the best of my knowledge, the case will be appealed.
I haven't checked but the timeline you suggested seems to be about right. |
November 25, 2013, 09:55 AM | #66 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 2, 2010
Location: Not far enough from Chicago
Posts: 394
|
I imagine a SCOTUS case would have to argue against the fee rather than anything related to a second amendment violation.
|
November 25, 2013, 02:23 PM | #67 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
This case is about more than nominal fees, for permission, on the core right to keep arms in the home for "defense of hearth and home."
Yes, it is a direct and substantial burden on the exercise of the 2A. That is how it will be argued. The system in NYC was designed at the outset to hinder, as much as was possible, the citizens right to defend his home. Whether or not that point will be argued is probably foreclosed, as it was not really briefed either at District or at Appeals. |
December 17, 2013, 10:09 PM | #68 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Time to file for cert has been extended by Justice Ginsburg. New date is Feb. 3, 2014.
|
December 22, 2013, 12:33 PM | #69 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 389
|
I came across this blog on Kwong v Bloomberg which I thought was interesting:
Unpacking Kwong v. Bloomberg: How Constitutional Review May Be More Dangerous Than Guns Themselves http://ramblingsonappeal.blogspot.co...mberg-how.html Something that I totally missed before, which I think was initially found only in Judge Walker's opinion, that the fee helps keep the public safe. But then repeated by Susan Paulson council for NYC: Quote:
http://www.archive.org/download/gov....77535.33.0.pdf Quote:
|
||
February 14, 2014, 01:24 PM | #70 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 389
|
I just realized the deadline date for this passed.
I think it would be great for SCOTUS to hear this case now in light of Moore and Peruta. Does anyone know if Jensen applied for writ of certiorari ? |
February 14, 2014, 03:36 PM | #71 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
As you can see below, David Jensen has until Feb. 17th to file. Since that is Presidents Day, and a Federal Holiday, that means Jensen has until the end of the next day, Feb. 18th.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.a...les/13a567.htm |
February 14, 2014, 10:13 PM | #72 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 389
|
Pretty crafty... getting extensions.
Like Lisa Madigan did in Moore to drag that case out. Well now that CA9 has ruled in Peruta I think it is as good a time as any to appeal Kwong to the Supreme Court. |
February 19, 2014, 05:06 PM | #73 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 389
|
Will it take a while for a filing to show up on the docket?
I hope he filed. I'm not sure how to track this down if David Jensen did file. |
February 20, 2014, 12:11 AM | #74 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
It sometimes takes the clerk a day or two to update the docket info.
OR You could email David Jensen. |
February 21, 2014, 03:39 PM | #75 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 389
|
http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.a...les/13-993.htm
Feb 17 2014 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due March 24, 2014) |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|