View Single Post
Old March 27, 2012, 10:03 AM   #10
Al Norris
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,550
On Monday the 26th of March, Judge John G. Koeltl denied the Plaintiffs MSJ and granted the Defendants cross-MSJ. The Opinion and order are here:

In dealing with the claims for relief, the Judge uses a very low form of intermediate scrutiny to two-step the 2A claim of burden. Then the Judge uses rational basis to do away with the Equal Protection argument.

Footnote 8 (pp 25) is rather curious:
8 The plaintiffs initially argued that the fees recouped from handgun licensing were deposited in their entirety into the NYPD Pension Fund rather than used to defray administrative costs. However, the statutory provision upon which the plaintiffs relied in support of this argument — New York City Admin. Code § 13-203(6) — was amended in 1995 to provide that all fees collected from handgun licensing be paid into the City of New York’s General Fund rather than the NYPD’s Pension Fund. 1995 N.Y. Laws Ch. 503, attached as Goldberg-Cahn Decl. Ex. L; N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 13-213.1(3)(c). The plaintiffs do not dispute that this amendment had the effect of directing handgun licensing fees to the City’s General Fund, rather than to the NYPD Pension Fund. (City Defs.’ R. 56.1 Counterstmt. ¶¶ 55-59; Pls.’ R. 56.1 Resp. ¶¶ 55-59.).
To my tired old brain, this simply begs the question: If the funds were first deposited in a pension fund, then changed to the general revenue fund, why is this not a show of excessive fees? If it costs as much as the Defendants and Court says it does, there should be no excess fees to go anywhere.

For that matter, shouldn't such funds go directly to the Police to defray the costs (ala the CA fee scheme)?

On to the 2nd Circuit....
Al Norris is offline  
Page generated in 0.03528 seconds with 7 queries