Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
1/22/2020 12:12:56 PM
Posted: 7/14/2008 3:57:41 PM EST
From the syracuse post Standard

Judge rules state's gun laws prevail
Judge William Walsh says Supreme Court handgun case does not affect state laws.
Monday, July 14, 2008
By Jim O'Hara
Staff writer
The recent historic handgun ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court should have no impact on gun control and licensing provisions in New York state, a local judge has concluded.

Onondaga County Judge William Walsh ruled the June 26 Supreme Court ruling striking down the District of Columbia's strict handgun ban has no effect on the rights of individual states to establish their own firearm laws.

Walsh made that finding in a written decision in which he reinstated a local man's pistol permit with limitations.

Advertisement






The Supreme Court may have recognized the right of individuals to possess lawful firearms in their homes, but it did not overrule the established precedent that the Second Amendment applies only to Congress and not to the states, Walsh wrote.

The Supreme Court's ruling would have an impact in the nation's capital because the District of Columbia is not a state and is under the jurisdiction of Congress, the judge decided. But it would not have an impact on states' rights to establish firearms laws, he concluded.

In the matter before Walsh, Daniel M. Groff, of Bridgeport, had had a pistol permit since 1991 that allowed him the unrestricted right to carry a concealed weapon. The judge noted the permit had been revoked in May based on the filing of DWI and reckless driving charges against Groff in Sullivan, Madison County.

With proof that Groff pleaded guilty to reckless driving and paid a $300 fine, Walsh last week ordered his pistol permit reinstated. But the judge concluded the original decision allowing Groff to carry a concealed weapon had been a mistake.

An "unrestricted carry concealed permit" can be issued based on a showing a person has "a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community or of persons engaged in the same profession," Walsh noted.

Groff's original application indicated he needed the permit for "target shooting, personal protection, hunting" with no elaboration, the judge noted. He concluded target shooting and hunting did not warrant the issuance of a permit allowing Groff to carry a concealed weapon.

The judge further concluded the "unsubstantiated claim of the need for personal protection" was not sufficient to allow Groff to carry a concealed weapon.

Judge rules state's gun laws prevail
Page 2 of 2
Based on that and Groff's prior unblemished record, the judge agreed to reinstate his pistol permit but restricted it to possession on premises or for the purposes of hunting and target shooting.

Groff said recently he was unaware of the judge's decision about his pistol permit. He said he would await a copy of the ruling before deciding if he wanted to challenge the limitations.

Walsh wrote that the ability of New York residents to keep and bear arms is a privilege granted by statute. The state's constitution contains no such guarantee, he added.

Advertisement









"Thus, the issuance of a pistol license remains but a privilege subject to reasonable regulation under New York State law and the licensing officer is conferred with broad discretion in determining whether to issue, revoke, cancel or restrict such a license," Walsh wrote.

Tom King, president of the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, said Walsh is "probably right" in his interpretation of the Supreme Court ruling and its impact.

"That's the way it is," he said.

King said he had never expected the Supreme Court ruling in the District of Columbia case to end up striking down licensing laws and restrictions in states and communities across the country. It will require other court challenges around the country in the wake of that recent ruling to determine what impact it may ultimately have, he said.

King said there were no known challenges at this point to the laws in New York based on the Supreme Court ruling.


Link Posted: 7/14/2008 4:28:07 PM EST
An "unrestricted carry concealed permit" can be issued based on a showing a person has "a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community or of persons engaged in the same profession," Walsh noted.

And that my friends is where the law suites must touch upon. The judge is stating the general community doesn't have the right to defend themselves. Basic human and civil right denied. Oh just imagine if the ACLU was actually a defender of civil liberties.
Link Posted: 7/14/2008 4:51:33 PM EST
Makes me sick. These people are communists.

Pray for incorperation
Link Posted: 7/14/2008 4:53:16 PM EST

Originally Posted By Castillo:
Makes me sick. These people are communists.

Pray for incorperation


What's incorporation have to do w/ gun laws?
Link Posted: 7/14/2008 5:07:20 PM EST
Link Posted: 7/14/2008 5:30:01 PM EST

Originally Posted By Rich219:

Originally Posted By Castillo:
Makes me sick. These people are communists.

Pray for incorperation


What's incorporation have to do w/ gun laws?


It's not what you're thinking of. From Wikipedia cuz I'm lazy:

"Incorporation (of the Bill of Rights) is the American legal doctrine by which portions of the Bill of Rights are applied to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, although some have suggested that the Privileges or Immunities Clause would be a more appropriate textual basis. Prior to the ratification of the 14th Amendment and the development of the incorporation doctrine, in 1833 the Supreme Court held in Barron v. Baltimore that the Bill of Rights applied only to the Federal, but not any State, government. Even years after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment the Supreme Court in United States v. Cruikshank, still held that the First and Second Amendment did not apply to state governments. However, beginning in the 1890's, a series of United States Supreme Court decisions interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment to "incorporate" most portions of the Bill of Rights, making these portions, for the first time, enforceable against the state governments."
Link Posted: 7/14/2008 5:31:56 PM EST
I just read the NYS constitution...I hate this state.
Link Posted: 7/14/2008 5:56:18 PM EST
Link Posted: 7/14/2008 6:39:12 PM EST
"Walsh wrote that the ability of New York residents to keep and bear arms is a privilege granted by statute. The state's constitution contains no such guarantee, he added."

What a fucking disgrace.
Link Posted: 7/14/2008 7:09:42 PM EST
[Last Edit: 7/14/2008 7:29:02 PM EST by UnBro2008]

What a fucking disgrace.

+1 not only for the judge, but also because of :

Tom King, president of the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, said Walsh is "probably right" in his interpretation of the Supreme Court ruling and its impact.
"That's the way it is," he said.


After reading this a line from the movie Galaxy Quest comes to mind, that perhaps the NYSRPA should think about

"Never give up, never surrender!
- Commander Peter Quincy Taggart
Link Posted: 7/14/2008 7:32:01 PM EST

The judge further concluded the "unsubstantiated claim of the need for personal protection" was not sufficient to allow Groff to carry a concealed weapon.


I wonder if he can explain how can a subjective entity like the desire for one to be personally protected could be "unsubstantiated"?

I hope the case against the city of Chicago goes well. It sounds like the defendant(s) are moving towards the question of incorporation there. Just gotta keep lying to myself that things are moving in the right direction
Link Posted: 7/15/2008 12:46:22 AM EST
[Last Edit: 7/15/2008 12:47:39 AM EST by TMB9862]
It sucks but I don't think most of us can say we didn't see this coming even before the Heller decision. NY, NJ, CA, and the other communist states are going to fight it every step of the way. Their are going to be a lot of cases like this where people use the now defined second amendment to challenge gun laws. Most if not all of them are going to fail as they don't have the time, money, and patience to do it right. Hopefully the second is incorporated and we start seeing some laws successfully challenged. No one is going to be able to do it on their own though.
Link Posted: 7/15/2008 4:18:29 AM EST
[Last Edit: 7/15/2008 4:19:09 AM EST by Andreuha]
My only response is: Awesome!

First of all, there is a long record of anti-gun rulings passed down by activist judges in lower courts (...all the way up to the federal circuit courts...). Secondly, this is not a bad thing at all: Higher courts do not see cases that are resolved in lower courts (which, by the way, do not have nearly the same degree of power with regard to striking down laws as higher courts do). So with that said, I look forward an appeal on this ruling going to a higher court.
Link Posted: 7/15/2008 4:20:51 AM EST
This is not a loss and and is just a restatement of the settled case law in NY. Prior to Heller there was no relief possible in NY with the exception of the Legislature amending the current pistol licensing law. With the Heller decision the door in NY will be opened after the 2nd is incorporated.

As a side note the NY Bill of Rights contained in the NY Civil Civil Rights Law - Bill of Rights states the following.

New York Civil Rights Law Section 4 - Right To Keep And Bear Arms.

§ 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.

Link Posted: 7/15/2008 4:26:47 AM EST

Originally Posted By Andreuha:
So with that said, I look forward an appeal on this ruling going to a higher court.


Not possible in NYS court. The NY COA (highest state court) has repeatably decided that you have no individual right in NY to possess or carry a handgun. The SC justice in the above case just restated the prior decision(s) of the COA.
Link Posted: 7/15/2008 4:36:14 AM EST
What exactly was anyone here expecting, that NY would simply let the Sullivan Law die a quiet death? Get a clue. That is never going to happen. This was an entirely predictable reaction. It also reinforces what I said before: we are not going to simply start filing lawsuits in hopes we win something like this guy did. We are going to get solid legal advice on how to apply Heller in NY before any legal action is taken.
Link Posted: 7/15/2008 4:37:13 AM EST

Originally Posted By rkbar15:
This is not a loss and and is just a restatement of the settled case law in NY. Prior to Heller there was no relief possible in NY with the exception of the Legislature amending the current pistol licensing law. With the Heller decision the door in NY will be opened after the 2nd is incorporated.

As a side note the NY Bill of Rights contained in the NY Civil Civil Rights Law - Bill of Rights states the following.

New York Civil Rights Law Section 4 - Right To Keep And Bear Arms.

§ 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.



Can you explain the difference between the NY Constitution and the Civil Rights law? How are they different? Also, could someone file a civil rights violation as it is defined in the civil rights law?
Link Posted: 7/15/2008 4:37:37 AM EST

Originally Posted By rkbar15:

Originally Posted By Andreuha:
So with that said, I look forward an appeal on this ruling going to a higher court.


Not possible in NYS court. The NY COA (highest state court) has repeatably decided that you have no individual right in NY to possess or carry a handgun. The SC justice in the above case just restated the prior decision(s) of the COA.


So is there any non-legislative recourse that for the pro-gun lobby within the state?
Link Posted: 7/15/2008 4:49:23 AM EST
this whole thing sucks.
Link Posted: 7/15/2008 5:05:38 AM EST
Heller might open up new avenues for litigation. Other than that, nope, everything has been litigated to death and our side lost.
Link Posted: 7/15/2008 5:06:14 AM EST
Link Posted: 7/15/2008 5:10:17 AM EST
[Last Edit: 7/15/2008 5:13:18 AM EST by 762DM]

Originally Posted By Andreuha:

Originally Posted By rkbar15:
Originally Posted By Andreuha:
So with that said, I look forward an appeal on this ruling going to a higher court.


Not possible in NYS court. The NY COA (highest state court) has repeatably decided that you have no individual right in NY to possess or carry a handgun. The SC justice in the above case just restated the prior decision(s) of the COA.

So is there any non-legislative recourse that for the pro-gun lobby within the state?

Yup...the best non-legislative recourse is to move to the free territories. A mass exodus of the most productive demographics will definitely upset the apple cart.
i realize it may not be a realistic thing, even for me, but the threat thereof will awaken the local politicos who will pass it up the line.
Link Posted: 7/15/2008 5:43:12 AM EST

... A mass exodus of the most productive demographics will definitely upset the apple cart ...


HA! That's been going on for years. I recently saw a news report that higher taxes/fees will drive another 3 million out. Everybody knows what the future looks like the legislature could care less. The Democrats want an unproductive lower class as they're the ones most likely to vote Democrat.
Link Posted: 7/15/2008 6:25:07 AM EST

Originally Posted By nyrkba:

... A mass exodus of the most productive demographics will definitely upset the apple cart ...


HA! That's been going on for years. I recently saw a news report that higher taxes/fees will drive another 3 million out. Everybody knows what the future looks like the legislature could care less. The Democrats want an unproductive lower class as they're the ones most likely to vote Democrat.


Unfortunately you are correct, I was born a few decades too late. We are, my friends, witnessing the fall of the Roman Empire. My poor kids.
Link Posted: 7/15/2008 7:00:54 AM EST
How could anyone have been so optimistic to think that even the most favorable heller decision would turn NY laws around?

Wishful thinking?

I hate to be a smarty-pants, but I knew it.
Link Posted: 7/15/2008 7:31:18 AM EST

Originally Posted By 762DM:

Originally Posted By nyrkba:

... A mass exodus of the most productive demographics will definitely upset the apple cart ...


HA! That's been going on for years. I recently saw a news report that higher taxes/fees will drive another 3 million out. Everybody knows what the future looks like the legislature could care less. The Democrats want an unproductive lower class as they're the ones most likely to vote Democrat.


Unfortunately you are correct, I was born a few decades too late. We are, my friends, witnessing the fall of the Roman Empire. My poor kids.


Every Empire falls at some point, its up to the common people to pic up the pieces and make things in the way the people want
Link Posted: 7/15/2008 7:32:59 AM EST

... How could anyone have been so optimistic to think that even the most favorable heller decision would turn NY laws around? ...


I didn't say that. What I said was a realistic plan put together with sound legal advice is needed, not some half-assed kamikaze lawsuit.
Link Posted: 7/15/2008 7:33:13 AM EST
[Last Edit: 7/15/2008 8:25:47 AM EST by rkbar15]

Originally Posted By nyrkba:
It also reinforces what I said before: we are not going to simply start filing lawsuits in hopes we win something like this guy did. We are going to get solid legal advice on how to apply Heller in NY before any legal action is taken.


Wasn't this simply an Article 78 proceeding to reinstate Groff's pistol license which had been revoked in May? I don't see where this action had anything to do with the Heller decision. In any case Groff successfully had his license reinstated.
Link Posted: 7/15/2008 7:34:07 AM EST
I don't know what exactly Groff did.
Link Posted: 7/15/2008 9:20:27 AM EST

Originally Posted By rkbar15:

Originally Posted By nyrkba:
It also reinforces what I said before: we are not going to simply start filing lawsuits in hopes we win something like this guy did. We are going to get solid legal advice on how to apply Heller in NY before any legal action is taken.


Wasn't this simply an Article 78 proceeding to reinstate Groff's pistol license which had been revoked in May? I don't see where this action had anything to do with the Heller decision. In any case Groff successfully had his license reinstated.


Not to the status it was before it was revoked. He lost the administrative priveldge to carry concealed.

The crime he was accused of had nothing to do with firearms, violence, assault, terroristic threats etc. Out there in free america, a judge cant suspend or revoke your right to firearms ownership unless & until you are proven guily of a felony or crime of domestic abuse (Restraining orders notwithstanding).

It wont be too long before these judges in NY State will be pulling pistol license's for review upon the issuance of a speeding ticket.

The more I hear 762DM's theory on making things better, the more I have to agree
Link Posted: 7/15/2008 9:38:15 AM EST

Originally Posted By Adirondack47:
Not to the status it was before it was revoked. He lost the administrative priveldge to carry concealed.


Licensing officers have the authority to place carry restrictions on pistol licenses as they see fit. Unless you can establish "proper cause" there is nothing you can currently do except to move to a gun friendly county like Dutchess. In WC some judges place target/hunting restrictions for active duty police officer's.
Link Posted: 7/15/2008 9:53:53 AM EST

Originally Posted By rkbar15:

Originally Posted By Adirondack47:
Not to the status it was before it was revoked. He lost the administrative priveldge to carry concealed.


Licensing officers have the authority to place carry restrictions on pistol licenses as they see fit. Unless you can establish "proper cause" there is nothing you can currently do except to move to a gun friendly county like Dutchess. In WC some judges place target/hunting restrictions for active duty police officer's.


Im very aware of that. My post was only to point out that while Groff's pistol license was reinstated, his administrative right privelege to carry concealed was not. A "successful" reinstatement would be one where the party was made whole again. I would argue that Groff was not if fact made whole again.

To reiterate, 762DM sounds smarter and smarter all the time
Link Posted: 7/15/2008 10:26:37 AM EST

Originally Posted By Adirondack47:
Im very aware of that. My post was only to point out that while Groff's pistol license was reinstated, his administrative right privelege to carry concealed was not. A "successful" reinstatement would be one where the party was made whole again. I would argue that Groff was not if fact made whole again.


His license was revoked along with the privilege of possessing his handgun(s) in NYS. The revocation might also impact his ability to keep or have a resident/non-resident CCW from another state. I'd consider him very fortunate at this point that he had his license restored and once again can lawfully possess his handgun(s).

The Democrats would like nothing better then to see every gun owner in NYS move to a free state.
Link Posted: 7/15/2008 10:54:28 AM EST
[Last Edit: 7/15/2008 10:59:38 AM EST by TMB9862]

Originally Posted By Andreuha:
My only response is: Awesome!

First of all, there is a long record of anti-gun rulings passed down by activist judges in lower courts (...all the way up to the federal circuit courts...). Secondly, this is not a bad thing at all: Higher courts do not see cases that are resolved in lower courts (which, by the way, do not have nearly the same degree of power with regard to striking down laws as higher courts do). So with that said, I look forward an appeal on this ruling going to a higher court.

Assuming you're talking about becoming shall issue, that would make a lousy case anyway. You don't want the guy who lost his pistol license for DWI to be your poster child.
Link Posted: 7/15/2008 11:12:22 AM EST

Originally Posted By rkbar15:

Originally Posted By Adirondack47:
Im very aware of that. My post was only to point out that while Groff's pistol license was reinstated, his administrative right privelege to carry concealed was not. A "successful" reinstatement would be one where the party was made whole again. I would argue that Groff was not if fact made whole again.


His license was revoked along with the privilege of possessing his handgun(s) in NYS. The revocation might also impact his ability to keep or have a resident/non-resident CCW from another state. I'd consider him very fortunate at this point that he had his license restored and once again can lawfully possess his handgun(s).

The Democrats would like nothing better then to see every gun owner in NYS move to a free state.



How about the kid that recieved a letter from his issuing county judge a few years ago inquiring as to why he needed so many pistol's? Is he lucky to have kept his pistol permit too?

Im aware that a county judge has the authority and is fully justified under the color of law to revoke permits for just about any reason he deem's necessary (As he did in Groff's case), but that doesnt make it right.

Maybe weve been here too long and been beaten down too much when we dont take issue with things that are wrong.

In 40+ states in the union, until & unless you are a convicted felon, domestic abuser or adjudicated mentally indeficient, a judge cannot deny your right to own firearms. Whether it be hand guns or long guns.

No amount of obfuscation can justify the kind of circular reasoning that grants a single person that kind of autonomy in my humble opinion.

Sorry, its not right and never will be
Link Posted: 7/15/2008 1:43:40 PM EST

Originally Posted By Adirondack47:
Sorry, its not right and never will be


I never said it was right. The choices are live with it or move to a free state.
Link Posted: 7/15/2008 2:39:29 PM EST
Link Posted: 7/15/2008 3:26:02 PM EST

Originally Posted By HiramRanger:

Originally Posted By Adirondack47:

Originally Posted By rkbar15:

Originally Posted By Adirondack47:
Im very aware of that. My post was only to point out that while Groff's pistol license was reinstated, his administrative right privelege to carry concealed was not. A "successful" reinstatement would be one where the party was made whole again. I would argue that Groff was not if fact made whole again.


His license was revoked along with the privilege of possessing his handgun(s) in NYS. The revocation might also impact his ability to keep or have a resident/non-resident CCW from another state. I'd consider him very fortunate at this point that he had his license restored and once again can lawfully possess his handgun(s).

The Democrats would like nothing better then to see every gun owner in NYS move to a free state.



How about the kid that recieved a letter from his issuing county judge a few years ago inquiring as to why he needed so many pistol's? Is he lucky to have kept his pistol permit too?

Im aware that a county judge has the authority and is fully justified under the color of law to revoke permits for just about any reason he deem's necessary (As he did in Groff's case), but that doesnt make it right.

Maybe weve been here too long and been beaten down too much when we dont take issue with things that are wrong.

In 40+ states in the union, until & unless you are a convicted felon, domestic abuser or adjudicated mentally indeficient, a judge cannot deny your right to own firearms. Whether it be hand guns or long guns.

No amount of obfuscation can justify the kind of circular reasoning that grants a single person that kind of autonomy in my humble opinion.

Sorry, its not right and never will be


Actually in all 50 states a judge can deprive you of your rights to possess a firearm simply by issuing a domestic relations order of protection. Not charged with anything, much less convicted, but your rights go bye bye. Definitely sucks and NY's pistol permit system sucks as too. But please don't believe this only goes on here.



I articulated that in a previous post.

My point is that if this same incident happened to Groff in say Pennsylvania or New Hampshire, a judge would not have the impetus (let alone legal standing) to take away his right to own a handgun based on the accusation of a crime. In NY, they do have that right.

Even taking a plea to the lesser charge (so long as its not one of domestic violence) as he did, he still has the right to own a pistol in those states; not here. In my opinion, its an operative de-facto double jeopardy under the color of law.

Like I said, it wont be too long before youll have your pistol license pulled for "review" upon the issuance of a moving violation. Maybe even for parking citation's.


Link Posted: 7/15/2008 10:46:23 PM EST
Some of you who keep saying "its just not right" need to make the political views of judicial candidates regarding guns an issue during their election campaigns. The reality is that for many voters, the candidates views on guns is way down their list.
Link Posted: 7/16/2008 3:55:16 AM EST
MY God all you should need to do to show proper cause for CC in the Syracuse area is attach a couple days of news clippings from the Syracuse paper. Shootings and stabbings all the time.
Link Posted: 7/16/2008 5:03:10 AM EST

Originally Posted By NY_crawler:

Can you explain the difference between the NY Constitution and the Civil Rights law? How are they different? Also, could someone file a civil rights violation as it is defined in the civil rights law?

Frankly, a law protecting "rights" is not worth the paper it is written on. Laws can be changed on a whim or overturned easily enough by a court. A right defined in the constitution is much harder to throw away and provides a foundation for legal challenges. You can overturn a law based on the constitution but you cannot overturn the constitution on a law (at least in theory - courts have a way of ignoring that).

I would not be surprised to see the NYS Court of Appeals overturn the firearms provision of the NY Civil Rights Law because there is no state constitutional right to bear arms.

Link Posted: 7/16/2008 5:41:37 AM EST
"Like I said, it wont be too long before youll have your pistol license pulled for "review" upon the issuance of a moving violation. Maybe even for parking citation's."

Hell, make sure you tell me you got a pistol permit when I pull you over for speeding, and that'll pretty much guarantee you DON'T get a speeding ticket!


ps. As long as you aren't DWI.
Link Posted: 7/16/2008 6:36:28 AM EST

An "unrestricted carry concealed permit" can be issued based on a showing a person has "a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community or of persons engaged in the same profession," Walsh noted


Link Posted: 7/16/2008 7:23:22 AM EST

Originally Posted By SteelonSteel:
MY God all you should need to do to show proper cause for CC in the Syracuse area is attach a couple days of news clippings from the Syracuse paper. Shootings and stabbings all the time.


I've been cutting out articles from Newsday since January 1st, 2008. In six months I have about 56 clippings of shootings, stabbings, armed robberies and home invasions. Not one article is of a crime committed by someone with a pistol license (except for a couple of crimes by police officers).

Approx 1.5 million residents in Suffolk County

Approx 2500 police officers in Suffolk County

Not enough officers to defend everyone and officers are not obligated to defend anyone.

A God given Right to defend ones life

An affirmation by The Supreme Court Of The United States Of America that the Second Amendment is an individual Right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self defense

A licensing system that allows one to carry concealed to shoot at paper

A licensing system that allows one to carry concealed to protect money

A licensing system that does not allow one to carry concealed to defend their life

I swear by God Almighty, if I had a law degree I would fight this till the day I died. "Moving to a free state" is not the answer....fighting this as a group of Americans with balls, that is RIGHT and JUST in their cause IS the answer.

Link Posted: 7/16/2008 7:56:05 AM EST

Originally Posted By distortion9:
I swear by God Almighty, if I had a law degree I would fight this till the day I died. "Moving to a free state" is not the answer....fighting this as a group of Americans with balls, that is RIGHT and JUST in their cause IS the answer.


No relief (other then legislative action) is currently possible in NYS. When the 2nd is incorporated it may be possible to challenge some parts of the current licensing law. In the meantime it will be "Live Free or Die" in NH.

Levy goes into greater detail in the article.

www.cato-unbound.org/2008/07/14/robert-a-levy/district-of-columbia-v-heller-whats-next/

District of Columbia v. Heller: What’s Next?

by Robert A. Levy
Lead Essay
July 14th, 2008


Will the Second Amendment Be “Incorporated”?

Imminently, the Court will have to decide whether Second Amendment rights can be enforced against state governments. Washington, D.C. is not a state; it is a federal enclave within which Congress exercises plenary legislative power. Until 1868, when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal government, not to states or to municipalities legislating under delegated state authority. But in a series of post-Civil-War cases, the Supreme Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment was intended to “incorporate” most of the Bill of Rights in order to hold state governments accountable for violations. Interestingly, the Court has never ruled that the Second Amendment has been incorporated. If gun control regulations are to be challenged in places such as Chicago and San Francisco, that question must be answered.
Link Posted: 7/16/2008 12:05:42 PM EST
[Last Edit: 7/16/2008 12:08:13 PM EST by TMB9862]

Originally Posted By rkbar15: But in a series of post-Civil-War cases, the Supreme Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment was intended to “incorporate” most of the Bill of Rights in order to hold state governments accountable for violations. Interestingly, the Court has never ruled that the Second Amendment has been incorporated. If gun control regulations are to be challenged in places such as Chicago and San Francisco, that question must be answered.

Well if the 2nd isn't incorporated doesn't that mean if NYS felt like it they could say only white male landowners over the age of 35 can own firearms.
Link Posted: 7/16/2008 2:28:19 PM EST
Unfortunatley for us this is going to be a slow process. It will probably be a few years before we get another SCOTUS ruling on the Second. That ruling will almost certainly tackle incorporation, which this court is imho going to find in favor of. We can hope along the way that we get strict scrutiny as well. Either way, hopefully we can maintain a status quo in New York before we get a SCOTUS rulling on incorporation. After that, well, lets not get ahead of ourselves. Legislators have to know that gun bans are at least suspect now, so maybe they will try to stay from them for a while.
Link Posted: 7/16/2008 3:01:01 PM EST
Sadly, another case going to SCOTUS is a scary thing. Remember, it was a thin majority for Heller. Any changes to the make up of SCOTUS in the mean time could reverse things and make it worse.

It is a sorry state of affairs when people in that position do not read the constitution, but inject their opinions into it.
Link Posted: 7/22/2008 4:13:06 AM EST
Here's a very good letter to the editor about the judges ruling in the this case:


Post-Standard Letter
Monday, July 21, 2008

State's gun control law should be struck down

To the Editor:

Onondaga County Judge William Walsh's recent decision in the Daniel M.
Groff case was in error. He stated that the Supreme Court ruling
striking down the District of Columbia's strict handgun ban has no
effect on individual states.

The Fourteenth Amendment states in part, "No State shall make or enforce
any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of
the United States."

The Supreme Court's ruling clearly declares possession of arms is a
right of all law-abiding citizens. Therefore people enjoy legal immunity
from any and all state laws, including New York's Sullivan Law.

The Sullivan Law will eventually be tested in Federal Court. It will
likely be found offensive to the Constitution for four primary reasons:

1) It is a "permit," denoting that the state can issue or deny something
that is a right protected by the U.S. Constitution.

2) It requires the applicant to declare a reason for wanting to have a
handgun.

3) There is a time delay of from two months to a year or more between
submitting an application and the issuance or denial of a permit. Why
should a law-abiding person have to wait even one day?

4) The cost of a permit can be from more than $100 to over $500. But why
should any law-abiding citizen be required to pay any state any money to
exercise a right guaranteed by the Constitution?

Len Lisenbee

Outdoor writer, sportsman and retired

federal agent

Rushville


Link
Link Posted: 7/22/2008 4:41:36 AM EST

Originally Posted By Demeroma:
Here's a very good letter to the editor about the judges ruling in the this case:


Post-Standard Letter
Monday, July 21, 2008

State's gun control law should be struck down

To the Editor:

Onondaga County Judge William Walsh's recent decision in the Daniel M.
Groff case was in error. He stated that the Supreme Court ruling
striking down the District of Columbia's strict handgun ban has no
effect on individual states.

The Fourteenth Amendment states in part, "No State shall make or enforce
any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of
the United States."

The Supreme Court's ruling clearly declares possession of arms is a
right of all law-abiding citizens. Therefore people enjoy legal immunity
from any and all state laws, including New York's Sullivan Law.

The Sullivan Law will eventually be tested in Federal Court. It will
likely be found offensive to the Constitution for four primary reasons:

1) It is a "permit," denoting that the state can issue or deny something
that is a right protected by the U.S. Constitution.

2) It requires the applicant to declare a reason for wanting to have a
handgun.

3) There is a time delay of from two months to a year or more between
submitting an application and the issuance or denial of a permit. Why
should a law-abiding person have to wait even one day?

4) The cost of a permit can be from more than $100 to over $500. But why
should any law-abiding citizen be required to pay any state any money to
exercise a right guaranteed by the Constitution?

Len Lisenbee

Outdoor writer, sportsman and retired

federal agent

Rushville


Link



This man needs a beer
Link Posted: 7/22/2008 11:29:51 AM EST
Wow. I had almost forgotten how much I hate the NYS Gov't. After reading this thread, I am reminded why I couldn't leave the state fast enough after college. Having lived in a much more gun-friendly state (GA) for several years after school, I was quickly reminded how ridiculous the Nazi Republic of New York's gun laws were when Uncle Sam saw fit to station me back there in the fall of '06. Having been born and raised in NY, I was lucky enough to have acquired my pistol permit before leaving. (That was in 2000, and it still took 5 1/2 months in a far northern county, with the county DA and a town judge as two of my "character references" on the application) When I found out I would be returning to the Nazi Republic and inquired about adding several pistols I had acquired out-of-state to my permit (the pistols were still outside of the Nazi Republic... didn't want to take a chance of breaking any of their convoluted laws), I was told I would have to ship my pistols to an FFL inside the Nazi Republic and then go through the standard "purchase" procedures to have them "legally" added to my permit so that I could "posses" them. In the end, I worked out a solution with an FFL-holding friend that allowed me to avoid several hundred dollars in shipping and transfer costs simply to move firearms I already legally owned, but the dick-dance I had to go through served as a stinging reminder of how restrictive and retarded the gun laws of the Nazi Republic are.

I was overjoyed with the Heller decision by SCOTUS, but have no illusions that it will change anything in the foreseeable future with the gun laws in the Nazi Republic. What overjoys me even more is my new set of orders assigning back to a gun-friendly state and out of the Nazi Republic. (hello NC, goodbye NY) My deepest sympathies to the people on this board who do not have the option of leaving that state and must live under the oppressive rule of the Nazi Republic. It's really a nice state... it's just run by a bunch of un-intelligent (retarded), blind/adultering (hello GOV), narrow-minded buffoons who create state policies based strictly on the area from Westchester county south (and east). Apparently after reading the linked article, some of these morons migrated to Rochester (go figure) and pose as circuit judges. Like the old saying goes... "It's a great place to visit, but I sure wouldn't want to live there." Maybe that should be the new state tourism motto...
Top Top