The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old March 17, 2013, 08:26 PM   #51
esqappellate
Member
 
Join Date: October 16, 2012
Posts: 69
Perfect Thanks
esqappellate is offline  
Old March 18, 2013, 02:28 PM   #52
esqappellate
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]
esqappellate is offline  
Old March 19, 2013, 02:32 PM   #53
Tymah123
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!
Tymah123 is offline  
Old March 19, 2013, 04:13 PM   #54
esqappellate
Member
 
Join Date: October 16, 2012
Posts: 69
No result yet. look for a decision in 3 months or so.
esqappellate is offline  
Old March 19, 2013, 04:22 PM   #55
press1280
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 17, 2012
Posts: 218
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.
press1280 is offline  
Old March 19, 2013, 04:36 PM   #56
Tymah123
Member
 
Join Date: June 19, 2007
Location: NYC
Posts: 39
Thanks for the summary!
Tymah123 is offline  
Old July 9, 2013, 02:35 PM   #57
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,308
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.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf 12-1578_complete_opn-1.pdf (398.7 KB, 7 views)
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old July 9, 2013, 04:30 PM   #58
press1280
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 17, 2012
Posts: 218
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.
press1280 is offline  
Old July 9, 2013, 04:30 PM   #59
csmsss
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 2,986
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.
csmsss is offline  
Old July 24, 2013, 08:47 AM   #60
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,308
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.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf Kwong.Pet.for.Rehearing.pdf (585.3 KB, 15 views)
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old September 21, 2013, 10:34 PM   #61
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,308
The request for rehearing has been denied.

Thanks to esqappellate at MDShooters for this.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf Kwong Order Dening Rehearing.pdf (29.7 KB, 14 views)
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old September 22, 2013, 08:01 AM   #62
press1280
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 17, 2012
Posts: 218
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.
press1280 is offline  
Old September 22, 2013, 08:13 AM   #63
L2R
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 5, 2010
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 231
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


Evil cannot be reduced thru Legislation!
L2R is offline  
Old November 24, 2013, 07:50 AM   #64
Luger_carbine
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 377
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?
Luger_carbine is offline  
Old November 24, 2013, 03:56 PM   #65
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,308
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.
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old November 25, 2013, 09:55 AM   #66
Davey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 2, 2010
Location: Not far enough from Chicago
Posts: 363
I imagine a SCOTUS case would have to argue against the fee rather than anything related to a second amendment violation.
Davey is offline  
Old November 25, 2013, 02:23 PM   #67
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,308
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.
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old December 17, 2013, 10:09 PM   #68
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,308
Time to file for cert has been extended by Justice Ginsburg. New date is Feb. 3, 2014.
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old December 22, 2013, 12:33 PM   #69
Luger_carbine
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 377
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:
Susan Paulson, lead counsel for New York City, remarked in a public statement that she was pleased with the Second Circuit’s decision because it “properly recognized that the City’s licensing process is designed to promote public safety and prevent gun violence.”
I don't remember this being talked about in orals at all, and I only see this briefly mention in item 13 in the Statement of Undisputed Facts submitted by Attorney General of the State of New York, and the plaintiff's response:

http://www.archive.org/download/gov....77535.33.0.pdf

Quote:
In 1947, the law was amended to permit New York City to set its own fees, with the intention that licensing program would be “self-sustaining”. The legislative history demonstrates that the Legislature had received letters, including from the Mayor of the City of New York, William O’Dwyer, indicating that the then-current maximum fee of $1.50 was “inadequate to compensate for the administrative expense entailed in the issuance of such licenses”. The Mayor noted that before a license is issued, “the Police Department conducts an intensive investigation” to ensure that issuance of a license would not jeopardize the public safety and welfare. See Connell Decl., Ex. F, 1947 N.Y. Laws Ch. 147.

RESPONSE: Denied. New York City had the statutory power to set its own fees since 1938. Not disputed that the “Bill Jacket” contains a letter from the Mayor of New York City with the referenced statements, but disputed that this letter represents statements by the “Legislature” or even by an individual
My point being that the notion of the fee for the purpose of public safety slipped by me personally, and seemed to fly under the radar in general.
Luger_carbine is offline  
Old February 14, 2014, 01:24 PM   #70
Luger_carbine
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 377
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 ?
Luger_carbine is offline  
Old February 14, 2014, 03:36 PM   #71
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,308
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.
  • Dec 2 2013 Application (13A567) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from December 19, 2013 to February 2, 2014, submitted to Justice Ginsburg.
  • Dec 4 2013 Application (13A567) granted by Justice Ginsburg extending the time to file until February 3, 2014.
  • Jan 27 2014 Application (13A567) to further extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from February 3, 2014 to February 17, 2014, submitted to Justice Ginsburg.
  • Jan 29 2014 Application (13A567) granted by Justice Ginsburg extending the time to file until February 17, 2014.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.a...les/13a567.htm
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old February 14, 2014, 10:13 PM   #72
Luger_carbine
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 377
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.
Luger_carbine is offline  
Old February 19, 2014, 05:06 PM   #73
Luger_carbine
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 377
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.
Luger_carbine is offline  
Old February 20, 2014, 12:11 AM   #74
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,308
It sometimes takes the clerk a day or two to update the docket info.

OR

You could email David Jensen.
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old February 21, 2014, 03:39 PM   #75
Luger_carbine
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 377
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)

Luger_carbine is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:35 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.13197 seconds with 8 queries