View Single Post
Old September 30, 2012, 11:03 AM   #24
Al Norris
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,541
While the Plaintiffs/Appellants gave their opening arguments back in late June, the Defendants/Appellees have finally filed their response.

Unless the appellants need more time, we should have the SAF reply on or about 10/12/2012.

The response essentially states that the licensing fees are not prohibitive and that the state statute does not set a ceiling for NYC and Nassau County, it merely removed the ceiling.

What is not addressed, by any of the parties, is that the construction of the licensing scheme itself, is what causes the fees to be excessive in the first place. It is the licensing scheme that is the primary cause of the cost (see "firearms friendly" Texas, as another example of a high licensing cost).

We have seen this in several other cases... Investigating the good moral character and/or good cause of the applicant(s), in lieu of a criminal background check, is precisely what causes such fees to be vastly greater than what would be normal in the majority of other States that license possession and/or carry (see Woollard).

Not being an attorney, I can only surmise that the Woollard case was an outlier in systematically attacking those aspects of the "scheme."
Attached Files
File Type: pdf CA2 Kwong Appellee Response Brief.pdf (194.0 KB, 9 views)
Al Norris is offline  
Page generated in 0.03643 seconds with 8 queries