|
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 1, 2020, 01:05 AM | #26 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,468
|
mrreynolds -
I just clicked the link in your signature, which I assume leads to your web site. On the home page I see a reference to the language of the Second Amendment, but it's listed as New York statute, § 4. Right to keep and bear arms. That's not a complete enough citation for me to look up the statute, so I'd like to know where to find it. I ask because it happens that just a few days ago I researched the right to keep and bear arms in states' constitutions, and what I found is that New York State does not have any constitutional provision guaranteeing the RKBA. https://gun-control.procon.org/state...o-bear-arms-2/ Quote:
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO 1911 Certified Armorer Jeepaholic |
|
November 1, 2020, 01:18 AM | #27 | |
Staff
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 24,992
|
Quote:
Your frustration is natural. It's hard to get excited about the long-term, big picture when you're stuck with a narrow focus and in the short term. The problem is that if you're going to deal with SAF, you have to understand that the long-term, big picture is their exclusive focus.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
|
|
November 1, 2020, 01:26 AM | #28 |
Member
Join Date: July 31, 2007
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 23
|
My case is a commerce case I applied for licenses to conduct business. And it's not in the state constitution.
The Laws Of New York Consolidated Laws Civil Rights Article 2: Bill Of Rights https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CVR/4
__________________
Cavalier Knight |
November 1, 2020, 05:18 AM | #29 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 27, 2008
Posts: 2,199
|
The idea is to get more favorable courts to set precedent that NY courts will be bound to follow. That is when your situation becomes tenable. We aren't there yet. We have Heller and McDonald, but not a standard of review. SCOTUS dodged the issue on NYSRPA because NYC and NY played post-cert games. We need a good vehicle for a standard of review to be set, and your case probably isn't it.
|
November 1, 2020, 05:22 AM | #30 |
Member
Join Date: July 31, 2007
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 23
|
I appreciate all the responses but I think the misinterpretation is that this is not an RKBA case it's a commerce case. Interstate commerce is not up for debate it's pretty much set in stone the police cannot lawfully stop it. The licenses they withhold affect my ability to engage in commerce intrastate and/or interstate. Federally it's a done deal.
Also, the standard of review for violations of interstate commerce is already set its "strict scrutiny." They don't want to accept it. Therefore the Greeks are not the only ones who can use a Trojan Horse tactic you should always study and apply military science. That's what I did in my case.
__________________
Cavalier Knight Last edited by mrreynolds; November 1, 2020 at 05:31 AM. |
November 1, 2020, 05:41 AM | #31 |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,468
|
But the interstate commerce clause is in the federal constitution. I'm not a lawyer, but it would seem to me that the proper venue for a case based on violations of the federal constitution would be in federal court, not the New York state courts. New York state courts have no jurisdiction over interstate commerce. They have jurisdiction over intrastate commerce.
And, since the focus of the Second Amendment Foundation is the Second Amendment, if your case is a pure commerce clause case it should hardly be a surprise that the Second Amendment Foundation doesn't want to get involved.
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO 1911 Certified Armorer Jeepaholic |
November 1, 2020, 05:49 AM | #32 |
Member
Join Date: July 31, 2007
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 23
|
The first step is an Article 78 you have to exhaust the basic judicial administrative remedies first. Then you move forward as the case progresses. The commodity is "firearms in commerce" hence the Second Amendment comes into it. The SAF does not have to get involved that's not a deal-breaker. Read the case.
Under the “Equal Protection Clause” all “FFL 01’s” can engage in “Lawful Commerce in Arms.” Which is a “constitutionally-protected activity” i.e., “law-abiding” citizens purchasing firearms for “self-defense” in “commerce” which is at the core of the Second Amendment right. To possess you must acquire you stop FFLs from selling you stop possession. Not only is purchasing a firearm in “commerce” from “FFL 01s” “intrastate” at a “gun show” or “interstate” via “e-commerce” lawful, it is constitutionally protected. District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 635 (2008).
__________________
Cavalier Knight Last edited by mrreynolds; November 1, 2020 at 05:55 AM. |
November 1, 2020, 06:34 AM | #33 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 13, 2006
Posts: 8,288
|
Hmmmm. I'm not going to burn a lot of braincells wordsmithing this.
In your own words: "Utilizing that logic what case is going to come along that will allow FFL 01s in the city of New York to engage in "Lawful Commerce in Arms?" No disrespect intended but it's funny when the case before you is that case you're always told it's someone else's fight. I am Spartacus although he died. I could be Leonidas I of Sparta but damn he died too. Hell Han Solo died, Luke Skywalker he's dead too. I guess there are no hero's left, lol." There is something flawed about envisioning yourself a hero . Heroism is made of something else. Try this : "Discretion is the better part of valor" or "Choose your battles wisely" I know a brilliant person who was driven by the idea he would not submit to the Federal Government coercing money from him. He believed Federal income tax unconstitutional,and he set about proving it in court. To his credit,he did it accepting the consequences. As a result,he spent a number of years in a federal penitentiary. Was he a hero? This guy really was near genius,I wonder if he mis-applied his life? I guess thats up to him to decide. You make your choices. Montana,Wyoming,Texas...There are states friendly to the gun biz. But are you really about the gun biz? Some folks thrive on conflict and intensity.They argue just to argue Your posts here might be a clue. Its tiresome. Most folks don't want what you are selling. Folks in Montana,Wyoming,Texas might find that annoying. Maybe New York suits you. The failing of the geographic cure is"Wherever you go,there you are" Look up the "Serenity Prayer" Or how about "The cockroach who argues with a chicken is always wrong" There are ways to quiet the head noise,breathe,and be at peace. Last edited by HiBC; November 1, 2020 at 06:44 AM. |
November 1, 2020, 07:53 AM | #34 | |
Staff
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 24,992
|
Quote:
As I understand it, here's the issue. To conduct certain types of firearm sales, NYC requires that you have two licenses beyond the federally required FFL 01. NYC will not issue those licenses to FFL 01's who don't have a brick and mortar store. You can not operate a brick and mortar store out of your house because of zoning restrictions. Is it legal, under NYC law to conduct any firearm sales at all without the two licenses which you can't get? If the answer is 'No', then there is no "discrimination against interstate commerce". Discrimination against interstate commerce would require allowing intrastate/local commerce but preventing/restricting the same type of commerce when it is interstate. Local/state laws: 1. Must not discriminate against out-of-state actors or out-of-state competition, or have the effect of favoring in-state economic actors. If the law is discriminatory, then the state must show it has no other (reasonable) means of advancing a legitimate local (important, non-economic state interest, such as health of safety) purpose.The first doesn't apply if with-holding the licenses restricts both intrastate and interstate commerce equally. The second is a factor, but only if the courts rule that the restriction is "unduly burdensome". Assuming the answer about discrimination is 'No'. They can certainly legally stop you from getting a business license if you don't meet the requirements for one--as long as the requirements are such that they can be reasonably satisfied. If the requirements were impossible to satisfy then there would be a case--but it still wouldn't hinge on discrimination against insterstate commerce because there's no discrimination--they're just saying you can't do business of any kind. What they can't do is restrict your interstate commerce while allowing you to conduct the same kind of commerce at the intrastate level unless the courts agree that the burden imposed on interstate commerce is not clearly excessive. I suspect that's what AG meant when he said "your approach would not work to solve it." Without discrimination against interstate commerce being a factor, the case is reduced to challenging local zoning and licensing laws which are not going to be of interest to SAF. Even if it were, I don't see a good basis for such a challenge. NYC is not saying you can't get the licenses, period, they're just saying you have to meet the requirements before you are eligible. I don't like it, you don't like it. It's obviously done as a gun control gambit, but there's nothing in federal laws that says a city/state/county can't regulate businesses by requiring licenses and by using zoning.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
|
|
November 1, 2020, 03:57 PM | #35 | ||
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,468
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO 1911 Certified Armorer Jeepaholic |
||
November 2, 2020, 05:03 PM | #36 | ||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
Any general, constitutional protections of an individual's rights to engage in commerce derive from the Due Process (Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments) and Equal Protection (Article IV, Section 2 and the Fourteenth Amendment) clauses. There is no specific, broad constitutional protection of an individual right to engage in interstate commerce. With regard specifically to firearms, the Gun Control Act of 1968 provides at 18 USC 927: It appears that there are a few holes in the OP's legal analysis and that the legal issues are more complex than can reasonably be productively discussed in this Forum. The OP os going to need qualified, professional legal help if he plans to pursue his claims.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
||
Tags |
carry , ccw , ffl 01 , license , nypd |
|
|