NY concealed gun licensing scheme upheld.

NY concealed gun licensing scheme upheld.

This is a discussion on NY concealed gun licensing scheme upheld. within the In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly forums, part of the The Back Porch category; N.Y.'s Concealed Gun Licensing Scheme Is Upheld by Circuit By Mark Hamblett Contact All Articles New York Law Journal November 28, 2012 inShare.0 The requirement ...

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 18
Like Tree1Likes

Thread: NY concealed gun licensing scheme upheld.

  1. #1
    VIP Member Array HKinNY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nassau, NY(Long Island)
    Posts
    2,855

    NY concealed gun licensing scheme upheld.

    N.Y.'s Concealed Gun Licensing Scheme Is Upheld by Circuit
    By Mark Hamblett Contact All Articles

    New York Law Journal
    November 28, 2012
    inShare.0
    The requirement in New York's handgun licensing scheme that a person have "proper cause" to get a license to carry a concealed handgun in public does not violate the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled yesterday.

    A three-judge panel rejected the appeal of four plaintiffs who sought a declaratory judgment that the requirement violated the Constitution, with the circuit finding that "the proper cause requirement is substantially related to New York's compelling interests in public safety and crime prevention."

    The decision in Kachalsky v. County of Westchester, 11-3942, was made by Judges Robert Katzmann (See Profile), Richard Wesley (See Profile) and Gerard Lynch (See Profile) following oral arguments on Aug. 22. Wesley wrote the 49-page opinion upholding a 2011 grant of summary judgment to Westchester County by Southern District Judge Cathy Seibel (See Profile) (NYLJ Sept. 8, 2011).

    Wesley discussed New York state's long history of regulating firearms, including the 1911 Sullivan Law, which made it unlawful for any person to possess without a license "any pistol, revolver or other firearm of a size which may be concealed upon the person."

    Wesley said the application process for a license in New York is a rigorous one.

    "Every application triggers a local investigation by police into the applicant's mental health history, criminal history, moral character, and, in the case of a carry license, representations of proper cause," he said, a showing that is not merely satisfied by a general desire to protect one's person or property, or by merely asserting good moral character or by stating that the applicant lives or works in a high-crime area.

    As part of this investigation, fingerprints are taken and background checks are performed before the application is submitted to a licensing officer who has considerable discretion.

    Challenging New York Penal Law 400.00(2)(f) was Rye Brook solo practitioner Alan Kachalsky and three others who claimed the right to carry a handgun outside the home for self-defense. Each was denied because he or she failed to establish "proper cause."

    A fifth plaintiff, the Second Amendment Foundation, was dismissed from the case for lack of standing.

    Kachalsky in an affirmation stated the Second Amendment's "right to keep and bear arms" entitles him to carry a handgun without showing proper cause, observing that "we live in a world where sporadic random violence might at any moment place one in a position where one needs to defend oneself or possibly others."

    http://www.newyorklawjournal.com/Pub...20121028102117
    You do not know, what you do not know, until you realize that you do not know it


  2. #2
    VIP Member Array Brass63's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    NW Washington
    Posts
    5,551
    Are they going to appeal?
    The United States Constitution 1791. All Rights Reserved.

  3. #3
    Senior Member Array txron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    894
    I think this one will go all the way to the supreme court.
    No trees were harmed in the construction of this post. However a large number of electrons were indiscriminately aroused.

  4. #4
    VIP Member Array rottkeeper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Upstate New York
    Posts
    3,194
    New York is a cesspool and the politicians are liberal ''gun haters''. Should you need to show just cause for speaking in public? If they were so concerned about crime prevention and public safety, lifting the restrictios would be the answer.
    For as the lightning comes from the east and flashes to the west, so also will the coming of the son of man be. Mathew 24:27

    NRA Member

  5. #5
    Member Array steffen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Posts
    396
    If I go to visit NYC and get murdered, I highly doubt they will be willing to pay my spouse and future children for my lost wages and their pain and suffering. Guess I'm going to have to count on the free market to take care of that via life insurance.

  6. #6
    Distinguished Member Array kapnketel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Northern Kentucky
    Posts
    1,709
    No shock, this is the court that Justice Sotomayer sat on before her nomination to SCOTUS.
    I'd rather be lucky than good any day

    There's nothing that will change someone's moral outlook quicker than cash in large sums.

    Majority rule only works if you're also considering individual rights. Because you can't have five wolves and one sheep voting on what to have for supper.

  7. #7
    VIP Member Array oakchas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    7,492
    Read the second two pages at the link above.

    While I hope that the case is taken to the SCOTUS (which is apparently going to happen, they've filed the necessary papers), I more fervently hope that the case is won at the Supreme level...

    But, then, what about state's rights?

    I am not a legal scholar, nor an expert on the constitution, but I have read and understand the document to the best of my ability.

    The rights guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution are not to be messed with by the federal government.... but, what about the individual state..?

    I mean, I understand the tenth amendment:

    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
    to mean that any power to restrict the right to keep and bear arms can not be done on the federal level (making a whole bunch of departments and the laws they enforce unconstitutional, IMO)... But, is the right to keep and bear arms (2A) prohibiting the states from infringing on the right/regulating it as they see fit?

    If the right to keep and bear arms is NOT to be regulated at the state level... then it certainly cannot be regulated at the federal level.

    anyway, I'm just thinking out loud here... I hope it comes out in our favor if SCOTUS decides to hear it ...
    Doghandler likes this.
    Rats!
    It could be worse!
    I suppose

  8. #8
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    27,402
    Quote Originally Posted by From the ruling
    The requirement ... that a person have "proper cause" to get a license to carry a concealed handgun in public does not violate the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled yesterday.
    Huh. Defense of life isn't deemed a sufficiently "proper" cause. Essentially, they're preferring death-by-felon to an armed citizenry.

    This is the sort of thing that has inspired citizens to push for SHALL issue, with basic, enumerated minimum standards that disallow such arbitrary distinctions by bureaucrats and politicos.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  9. #9
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,727
    Quote Originally Posted by oakchas View Post
    Read the second two pages at the link above.

    While I hope that the case is taken to the SCOTUS (which is apparently going to happen, they've filed the necessary papers), I more fervently hope that the case is won at the Supreme level...

    But, then, what about state's rights?
    I am not a legal scholar, nor an expert on the constitution, but I have read and understand the document to the best of my ability.
    ...
    States rights are irrelevant. There is a legal mechanism known as "incorporation" by which the various provisions of the Bill of Rights can be used to constrain the acts of the states. So for example, a State can't outlaw a free press, establish a religion,
    or do whatever kind of random search they might desire to do. The Bill of Rights applies to the states effectively these days.

    What the Supremes have said is that 2A applies to the state, but that states may have reasonable regulations.

    NY's gun laws don't seem reasonable to us here on this board, but they apparently seem reasonable to the NY Legislature and to that Circuit Court.

    My own guess is that the Supremes won't touch this with a 40 foot pole. They will leave it to the Circuit Courts and the States
    to determine what is reasonable within their respective jurisdictions. Just my uninformed guess.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  10. #10
    VIP Member Array oakchas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    7,492
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    States rights are irrelevant. There is a legal mechanism known as "incorporation" by which the various provisions of the Bill of Rights can be used to constrain the acts of the states. So for example, a State can't outlaw a free press, establish a religion,
    or do whatever kind of random search they might desire to do. The Bill of Rights applies to the states effectively these days.

    What the Supremes have said is that 2A applies to the state, but that states may have reasonable regulations.

    NY's gun laws don't seem reasonable to us here on this board, but they apparently seem reasonable to the NY Legislature and to that Circuit Court.

    My own guess is that the Supremes won't touch this with a 40 foot pole. They will leave it to the Circuit Courts and the States
    to determine what is reasonable within their respective jurisdictions. Just my uninformed guess.
    Effectively "un" incorporating "incorporation" and upholding state's rights.... Hmmmm....
    Rats!
    It could be worse!
    I suppose

  11. #11
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,727
    Quote Originally Posted by oakchas View Post
    Effectively "un" incorporating "incorporation" and upholding state's rights.... Hmmmm....
    Not really, but I can see why it might be looked at in that way.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  12. #12
    VIP Member Array oakchas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    7,492
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Not really, but I can see why it might be looked at in that way.
    They will leave it to the Circuit Courts and the States to determine what is reasonable within their respective jurisdictions. . .
    well, that's what I mean by "effectively".... But SCOTUS would mess with other infringements on rights (guaranteed by the Constitution) by states... Like free speech, and religion... Why can keeping and bearing arms be reasonably restricted... but not speech or churches?
    Rats!
    It could be worse!
    I suppose

  13. #13
    VIP Member Array SIGguy229's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Kommie-fornia-stan
    Posts
    7,087
    I guess no one explained why the Sullivan Law was made, and the history behind it. Short version: Sullivan was a politician and a thug who used his political office against his criminal rivals. In short, nothing has changed NY/NYC in he last 101 years...
    Magazine <> clip - know the difference

    martyr is a fancy name for crappy fighter
    You have never lived until you have almost died. For those that have fought for it, life has a special flavor the protected will never know

  14. #14
    Senior Member Array mrreynolds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    620
    Food for thought: Seventh Circuit Invalidates Ban on Carrying Loaded Guns in Public‏

    The Volokh Conspiracy Seventh Circuit Invalidates Ban on Carrying Loaded Guns in Public

    http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/tmp/NY0OQN81.pdf

  15. #15
    RAL
    RAL is offline
    Member Array RAL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Fly over country
    Posts
    118
    Just hope the current POTUS doesn't get to nominate another Supreme in the next 4 years.
    I know Whose I am. I know where I'm going. I know the job I'm to do while I'm here. I am an ambassador. This is not my home.

    Evil prospers when good people to do nothing. Please don't turn your back. ACT!

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

help with proper cause statement in ny
,

nys concealed gun licensing scheme upheld by circuit

Click on a term to search for related topics.