NYC Post McDonald: We’re next?
The Supreme Court on Tuesday appeared ready to overturn Chicago’s handgun ban in a case gun rights groups plan to use against firearms laws in New York City and nationwide.
Mayor Bloomberg and the city chose to sit out the case and did not file a brief with the court supporting President Obama’s hometown of Chicago.
“We don’t expect it to impact on New York laws,” a Bloomberg spokeswoman said of the case, McDonald vs. Chicago. But both gun rights and gun control groups predict a rash of suits aimed at loosening the city’s rules on gun permits.
March 11th, 2010 at 11:39 am
“We don’t expect it to impact on New York laws,”
Whatever you say, Alfred E. Newman.
March 11th, 2010 at 11:47 am
They mean, We don’t expect it to impact on New York laws for 10 years. First somebody sues, and they get to drag that out for 3 years. Then the appeals process, then the state Supreme Court. The law won’t actually change until it goes before the Supreme Court again.
March 11th, 2010 at 12:37 pm
+1, dusty – if there is anyone who knows how to work the “justice” system, it’s Bloomberg
March 11th, 2010 at 1:15 pm
Don’t suppose there’s any remedy from Albany, NY w/ state preemption, because NYC is so big and “special”.
It will impact them, but it will be a long struggle. As Alan Gura said, it’s a “target rich environment”…maybe California will be next instead?
I’m also eager to see if the fight for open/concealed carry can win the day in DC (see if at least 5 justices actually understand the unambiguous “bear arms” part of the 2nd Amendment), that would be something. Then I’d like to see DC forced by Congress to recognize all state issued CHLs around the country.
😉 That’d be sweet.
March 11th, 2010 at 1:17 pm
Actually, I believe that New York State has already incorporated the Second Amendment against itself.
New York State Civil Rights Law says the following:
NY CVR Art. 2 § 4. Right to keep and bear arms. A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed.
Even without McDonald, the state courts can no longer say “that language applies to the militia” when the USSC in Heller has stated that nearly identical language means there is an individual right.
March 11th, 2010 at 1:22 pm
“You don’t need to look at our gun control laws”
“These are not the gun control laws you’re looking for”
“Move along”
March 11th, 2010 at 7:42 pm
Decommunization is likely to take a long time in New York. We have Soviet style rights where our right to keep and bear arms exists on paper but not in practice.
http://www.albanycounty.com/uploadedFiles/Pistol-Permit-2010-County_Clerk_Instructions.pdf
“Your Pistol Permit is legally a privilege. Treat it as such. The issuing judge has the right to revoke or restrict your
permit at any time, even after it has been issued to you. We thank you in advance for your cooperation.”
That’s the permit that is required to possess a handgun under any circumstances, even in the home. It’s not a right as far as they’re concerned; it’s merely a revocable privilege and they don’t mind saying so.
March 11th, 2010 at 7:46 pm
Pretty sure NY is one of the few states without a right to arms in their state constitution.
March 11th, 2010 at 9:01 pm
As Bill Twist mentioned:
“New York State Civil Rights Law says the following:
NY CVR Art. 2 § 4. Right to keep and bear arms. A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed.”
It says “cannot be infringed” on paper, but in practice, gun possession is a crime.
March 11th, 2010 at 11:15 pm
I a NJ resident, but own a cabin on 88 acres in NY, but because of the 1911 Sullivan Act, I cannot legally take handguns I legally own to my property. Once Heller is incorporated, I hope this will change.
March 12th, 2010 at 3:39 am
Im popping my corn. Bloomberg is a bitter, controlling king. The fight from here will be epic, and I know my side, freedom, will win out in the end.
-Bob, On Long Island