Sullivan Law ruled constitutional
So reports David Hardy: It finds that Plaintiffs pass all procedural hurdles, but rules the NY firearm carry permit system constitutional.
John has more.
I don’t see how it will stand. And SAF and Gura tend to lose at lower courts and have success with the big boys.
September 7th, 2011 at 9:27 am
Heard through an Anonymous Source that the Alans LIKE to lose in the Lower Courts, so that it can get Appealed UP to SCOTUS. This enables the Whole Country to Benefit from the Rulings, not just the local area where the Complaint was brought.
September 7th, 2011 at 10:35 am
The court was correct that Heller and McDonald only ruled on Constitutional protection of firearms kept in the home. The cases were designed to have that specific question forced upon the Supreme Court. They addressed no other issue.
Future cases, like this one, are designed to expand the judicial precedent established in Heller and McDonald.
Go Gura!
September 7th, 2011 at 1:32 pm
Quoted from the decision: “Article
265 of the NYPL imposes a general ban on the possession of firearms, see N.Y. Penal Law §
265.01(1), which includes handguns, id. § 265.00(3)(a), but creates various specific exemptions
from that ban..”
New York’s Sullivan law gives the government complete discretion as to whether or not a person may even own a handgun so I can’t see how this decision can stand in light of Heller & Mcdonald.
September 7th, 2011 at 9:54 pm
As a former New Yorker (thats right…former…) I’ve often said that the Sullivan Act will stand.
It will be a VERY Hard case to win at SCOTUS. I would call it a 50-50 crapshoot. It isn’t a slam dunk, folks…NY is a shithole, and its laws have withstood MANY challenges.
I would LOVE to see NY get its commupance, but I think it will be the hardest case Gura will have fought in front of SCOTUS to date.
September 8th, 2011 at 12:53 am
RELEASE THE GURAKEN
September 8th, 2011 at 2:34 am
This is an easy case at SCOTUS. If keep and bear only means keep then bear is surplussage. That’s not going to happen or Scalia wouldn’t have even introduced the “sensitive places” doctrine seeing as there are absolutely no sensitive places in someones house.
However, lower courts are lame. What is funny is that some of them don’t even understand that these are career limiting moves for them.
-Gene
September 8th, 2011 at 12:22 pm
I’m also a former New Yorker, Sullivan is clearly unconstitutional but depending on which side of the bed Kennedy gets up on, it could go either way.
People dumped on the NRA for not supporting the Heller case but they had a legitimate fear that a pro second amendment majority did not yet exist. Luckily, they were mistaken.