|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
November 15, 2011, 11:37 AM | #26 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 13, 2009
Posts: 232
|
Al, I follow your conclusion that while a state cannot prohibit the bearing of arms, they can regulate it. However, if strict scrutiny is applied (and I don't see how it won't be eventually if things continue the way they are, and certainly that would be the logical and moral stance considering that's what is applied to other natural rights) I don't see how banning a certain method of carry, as long as it is safe, could pass that kind of scrutiny. This may be the ultimate genius of Gura and company, but it's going to be increasingly difficult to argue that concealed carry poses any more of a public risk that open carry, or licensing provides better public safety than not, etc. If strict scrutiny is applied, most of this becomes mute. I am correct in thinking this?
|
November 15, 2011, 05:37 PM | #27 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
Aside from prohibited classes being banned from the right, I don't know how much weight can be given to the public safety concerns when the right is to carry a lethal weapon.
Aside from the prohibited folks carrying, what public safety concern involves danger beyond what is already an inherently dangerous practice (at least, for criminals)? Regulations that mitigate the danger like requiring training, proficiency, knowledge of force escalation (shoot, don't shoot) ought to pass muster. Certainly, inherent in the militia purpose was training, proficiency, i.e. well regulated. But no regulation can address every public safety concern when the core of the right inherently involves the capability of lethal force. Last edited by maestro pistolero; November 15, 2011 at 05:45 PM. |
November 15, 2011, 07:40 PM | #28 |
Junior member
Join Date: March 25, 2011
Posts: 463
|
As there appears to be more jurisprudence on gun control back in the day than I was aware of, I am apparently beat, and humbly withdraw from the argument.
|
November 15, 2011, 08:10 PM | #29 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
The real bottom line is that, as I've suggested in the past, we can't expect Heller and McDonald to herald the end of all regulation of the RKBA. |
|
November 15, 2011, 10:29 PM | #30 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Common thought is that the current carry cases are fighting discretionary carry. That thought is only partially correct.
By and large, what we are currently fighting is the lower courts and their wholesale unwillingness to admit that the core of the right, is in fact, the right to keep and bear functional arms for self defense in case of confrontation. Keeping in mind that the lower courts are relying upon the exact holding of Heller and calling everything else in that decision, dicta. So far, the 7th Circuit is the only Court to do the necessary work that the Heller Court said they were to do. And that, only in the Ezell case. Once it is established that carry for self defense means carry for self defense, public or private (in the home), the discretionary laws will fail. Fact of the matter is that this now is the whole purpose of these lawsuits. This can be seen in the way the later filings have been worded. As fiddletown and Maestro have observed, permitting/licensing will be held constitutional. In many cases, even under strict scrutiny. |
November 15, 2011, 11:19 PM | #31 | |
Junior member
Join Date: March 25, 2011
Posts: 463
|
Quote:
|
|
February 3, 2012, 09:40 PM | #32 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
I've really been remiss in reporting this case. sigh. Juggling too many balls?
Back on Nov. 9th, the opening brief was filed. Which I reported here, in the Main 2A cases thread, instead of this one. Then the State sought and was granted an extension to file until Westchester County was due to file their reply. That would be on or before Feb. 8th. Today Westchester County filed their brief a tad early. Does, "In the Home" ring any bells? Don't let the size of the file scare you. It's only 28 scanned pages. |
February 4, 2012, 12:10 PM | #33 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,468
|
Hoo, boy. As my late grandmother used to say, 'There are none so blind as those who will not see."
Quote:
|
|
April 3, 2012, 10:26 PM | #34 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
I haven't read it yet, but the SAF and Gura have filed their reply brief. The CA2 is now fully briefed and we will await for Orals.
|
April 4, 2012, 12:30 AM | #35 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 24, 2011
Posts: 730
|
One thing you have to remember, unlike WA, ID and many other states, NY has no 2A equivilent in their state constitution, so all arguments have to be based on the bill of rights 2A.
NY does not want to see unbridled the right to bear arms in the 2A, so they will twist what does exist in any manner they can...this brief does not surprise me at all. Until the Supreme court comes out and flatly states that their is an unbridled right to carry anywhere you can legally be, there will be CA,NY, NJ, MD, MA, oh yes, and HI, Guam, the Marianna's etc. |
April 4, 2012, 08:12 AM | #36 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Here's some quotes from the reply brief that I thought you would find amusing...
Quote:
|
|
April 4, 2012, 08:34 AM | #37 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
The best argument (IMO) in the reply, directed to all the social science that Cook and Zimring used:
Quote:
|
|
April 4, 2012, 08:55 AM | #38 |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,821
|
I don't have time to read this brief this morning, but I do see Woolard in the table of authorities. Looking forward to a good lunchtime read.
Thank you, Al, for all of your hard work on these.
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
May 16, 2012, 10:45 AM | #39 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
A proposed date for orals:
Quote:
|
|
May 18, 2012, 08:24 AM | #40 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Orals have been set:
Quote:
|
|
June 12, 2012, 10:13 PM | #41 | ||
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Quote:
Quote:
The Decastro decision: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-2nd-circuit/1602105.html |
||
June 12, 2012, 11:17 PM | #42 |
Member
Join Date: March 17, 2012
Posts: 32
|
Why are they bringing a case regarding an unlicensed firearm into the mix? Kachalsky deals with removing "good cause" and subjective licensing schemes, not the overall RKBA.
|
June 13, 2012, 06:49 PM | #43 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 9,142
|
Quote:
DeCastro argued on appeal that the court should review section 922(a)(3) using either strict or intermediate scrutiny. The 2nd Circuit said: Quote:
Particularly interesting is this: Quote:
|
|||
June 13, 2012, 09:10 PM | #44 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,468
|
Quote:
What cooked-up statistics did the City present that caused the court to "infer" something as patently incorrect as this? |
|
June 13, 2012, 09:24 PM | #45 | ||
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
A bit of a quote from the DeCastro decision:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
June 14, 2012, 04:56 PM | #46 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 17, 2012
Posts: 228
|
The high grant rate is due to it being a permit for simple possession, not CCW. They're not supposed to deny anyone who is clean, but I'm sure they reject folks for something other than felonies/mental issues, as they most probably have a "good character" clause.
|
June 15, 2012, 03:12 AM | #47 |
Member
Join Date: March 17, 2012
Posts: 32
|
Plus when you apply for a CCW in NYS they tell you flat out "You will not get this permit, would you like to continue or would you like a premises/sportsman permit". They may also be including the denial of a CCW but granting of a lesser permit.
|
June 15, 2012, 07:54 AM | #48 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
Quote:
Unfortunately, many of the largest population centers are a real problem but it's certainly not the entire state. In most of upstate, there is no trouble getting permits.
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley |
|
June 16, 2012, 09:47 PM | #49 | |
Member
Join Date: March 17, 2012
Posts: 32
|
Quote:
|
|
June 16, 2012, 10:19 PM | #50 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 29, 2005
Location: Saratoga Springs, NY
Posts: 275
|
Quote:
I have a permit in upstate NY. I have the restriction on it that states "hunting and target." I wrote a letter to the issuing judge and included many LEO references to have the restriction removed. I was denied the removal of the restrictions. The judge stated that he only issues unrestricted permits to retired LEO,and a few other branches, corrections, etc. he stated that he can't issue me an unrestricted permit as "I could then carry in public or to a bar, etc." I have the letter still. Our permits also state right on them that they can be revoked at anytime. This is one of the better counties in the state. You also have to have each handgun put on your permit, so you have to go buy the gun, go to the county office, pay a fee, they put it on your permit, give you a judge-signed coupon and you can go get your gun. In my county this happens on the spot. Many counties make you wait (I've waited weeks) for the judge to sign it plus you must mail the amendment form and wait for it to be mailed back. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
|
|
|