DKSuddeth
Member
Murdock v. Commonwealth of PA says differently.
NYSRPA: After Heller NYC Might Be Next
- Thread starter Cavalier Knight
- Start date
- Status
Murdock v. Commonwealth of PA says differently.
The Key - License or Permit to Possess
This is why I stated in another thread how important it will be for the Supreme Court to be clear and specific in Heller as it relates to licenses and permits. If the Supreme Court rules in Heller that there is an individual right to keep and bear arms, including the right to possess a loaded, operational pistol in one's home, but that the state may require a permit to simply own said pistol, then we have lost.
If that is the ruling then NYC's laws aren't going anywhere. This case is about more than the individual RKBA. It is about more than strict scrutiny and incorporation. All of those things are important but if a license is required for mere possession then it is all moot. State and local governments will simply continue doing what they have done for decades, namely make the licensing process so arduous as to deter most people from even applying. It goes beyond simply charging outrageous fees (which NYC does), requiring ridiculous amounts of paperwork (something NYC also does) and conducting interviews with potential licensees designed to trip you up and disqualify you (3 for 3). One of the tricks most commonly used by municipalities that don't want you to have a firearm is to require multiple trips to the licensing authority during business hours. Many people cannot take three, five, seven days off from work at random times with little notice. Guess what though? You don't make the appointment, you don't get the license.
When Heller is decided, if permits and licenses are required for mere possession we lose. Chicago, NYC etc will simply use mountains of paperwork and other tricks to make the license very difficult to obtain. And nothing changes.
This is why I stated in another thread how important it will be for the Supreme Court to be clear and specific in Heller as it relates to licenses and permits. If the Supreme Court rules in Heller that there is an individual right to keep and bear arms, including the right to possess a loaded, operational pistol in one's home, but that the state may require a permit to simply own said pistol, then we have lost.
If that is the ruling then NYC's laws aren't going anywhere. This case is about more than the individual RKBA. It is about more than strict scrutiny and incorporation. All of those things are important but if a license is required for mere possession then it is all moot. State and local governments will simply continue doing what they have done for decades, namely make the licensing process so arduous as to deter most people from even applying. It goes beyond simply charging outrageous fees (which NYC does), requiring ridiculous amounts of paperwork (something NYC also does) and conducting interviews with potential licensees designed to trip you up and disqualify you (3 for 3). One of the tricks most commonly used by municipalities that don't want you to have a firearm is to require multiple trips to the licensing authority during business hours. Many people cannot take three, five, seven days off from work at random times with little notice. Guess what though? You don't make the appointment, you don't get the license.
When Heller is decided, if permits and licenses are required for mere possession we lose. Chicago, NYC etc will simply use mountains of paperwork and other tricks to make the license very difficult to obtain. And nothing changes.
Exactly. Sorry, but voting is NOT A BASIC RIGHT
http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/political_reform/right_to_vote.html
"In its 2000 ruling, Alexander v Mineta, the Court decided the 600,000 or so (mostly black) residents of Washington D.C. have no legal recourse for their complete lack of voting representation in Congress (they have one “representative” in the House who can speak, but cannot vote). The Court affirmed the district court's interpretation that our Constitution "does not protect the right of all citizens to vote, but rather the right of all qualified citizens to vote.” And it's state legislatures that wield the power to decide who is “qualified.”
As a result, voting is not a right, but a privilege granted or withheld at the discretion of local and state governments. "
You are 100% correct. As was said, however, Heller is the foundation upon which future court decisions will be built- for good or for ill. This is why it is so important for BOTH sides. If we win, it is huge, because we can then start to challenge other laws and restrictions. If they win, we are not only denied this opportunity, but the Antis can proceed further in passing restrictive laws, because it is not a basic, individual right to keep and bear arms.
Anyone who thinks Heller is going to be a game-winning touchdown does not get it. Heller is more like the long, risky pass play that will either set up the Anti's within striking distance of the goal, or result in a turnover that gives us the ball and allows us to go on offense. But Heller, in and of itself, is very narrow in scope.
Mike
brighamr
Member
"Anyone who thinks Heller is going to be a game-winning touchdown does not get it. Heller is more like the long, risky pass play that will either set up the Anti's within striking distance of the goal, or result in a turnover that gives us the ball and allows us to go on offense. But Heller, in and of itself, is very narrow in scope."
The best and most accurate summary i've read. thank you.
The best and most accurate summary i've read. thank you.
Nice analogy, but backward...
We threw the ball. If the pass is complete, we're 1st and goal, or close to it. After this, it'll be short, hard runs that'll get us in the end zone. Expect the defense to put up a hell of a fight.
If it's intercepted, the other side has a straight run for the touchdown.
The pass has been caught, now it's just a question of where the receiver hits the turf.
--Shannon
We threw the ball. If the pass is complete, we're 1st and goal, or close to it. After this, it'll be short, hard runs that'll get us in the end zone. Expect the defense to put up a hell of a fight.
If it's intercepted, the other side has a straight run for the touchdown.
The pass has been caught, now it's just a question of where the receiver hits the turf.
--Shannon
Robert Hairless
Member
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2003
- Messages
- 3,983
Although it might be hard to believe, there are many people in New York City (and elsewhere) for whom $100 a year is indeed that big a deal.
It's roughly $100 a year too much for the cost of exercising a Constitutional right. The poor, humble, old, and weak are just as entitled to life as billionaire mayor Michael Bloomberg and his minions.
New York City should provide financial assistance to the people who want one of its permits but can't afford it. What a wonderful gesture it would be if the wealthy Mayor Bloomberg paid that cost out of his own pocket each year. He wouldn't miss it.
usmarine0352_2005
member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2005
- Messages
- 2,796
That's how it starts. "Reasonable Restrictions" and a "Reasonable Fee."
Who decides what reasonable is?
Reasonable to who?
Is $100 a year and renewal every year + one gun a month reasonable?
I fully expect that at some point incorporation is going to happen. I also think that legal strictures like NYC and Chicago that are primarily oriented at making it difficult to legally own firearms are going to go away.
I suspect that relatively innocent things like the $1 a year, shall issue FOID card in Illinois, or the NICS check will stick around, as will prohibitions on felons possessing firearms. I also think congress will change the funding restrictions at the BATFE that currently prohibit them from removing such restrictions at a federal level to avoid a pointless court fight.
Waiting periods might even survive court challenges, but probably not the real long ones, and there may well be extreme suspicion put on the unofficial waiting periods like in NY where it can take months or years to get a permit just to buy a handgun. There is plenty of precedent on that kind of thing.
I think some of the DV restrictions will also get a real close look-see. Its very clear that the vast majority of people who are prohibited under those restrictions are not a threat to use firearms against anyone. It may even lead the courts to take a close look at the use of TROs as a tool of divorce lawyers to force concessions as opposed to truly dealing with someone who has violence issues.
I think it is entirely possible that a strong win in Heller could convince the worst offenders of the "keep" part of the RTKBA to adjust their laws accordingly, even without incorporation.
That would mean the next fight is the right to bear arms, which I think will be hard to argue against with a straight face once the right to keep arms is settled. I do think the courts will give the states a fair amount of leeway in how the right to bear arms is handled, much like states get a fair amount of leeway in deciding how to handle elections. I do think there is a good chance that some of the worst offender states may well make some preemptive changes to their carry laws in the hopes that the courts will see fit to leave something in place.
There is at least some chance that the courts will rule that bearing arms means to do so in an obvious way, so only open carry is covered under the 2A. That could lead to making CC permits a whole lot easier to get.
Should be an interesting couple of decades.
I suspect that relatively innocent things like the $1 a year, shall issue FOID card in Illinois, or the NICS check will stick around, as will prohibitions on felons possessing firearms. I also think congress will change the funding restrictions at the BATFE that currently prohibit them from removing such restrictions at a federal level to avoid a pointless court fight.
Waiting periods might even survive court challenges, but probably not the real long ones, and there may well be extreme suspicion put on the unofficial waiting periods like in NY where it can take months or years to get a permit just to buy a handgun. There is plenty of precedent on that kind of thing.
I think some of the DV restrictions will also get a real close look-see. Its very clear that the vast majority of people who are prohibited under those restrictions are not a threat to use firearms against anyone. It may even lead the courts to take a close look at the use of TROs as a tool of divorce lawyers to force concessions as opposed to truly dealing with someone who has violence issues.
I think it is entirely possible that a strong win in Heller could convince the worst offenders of the "keep" part of the RTKBA to adjust their laws accordingly, even without incorporation.
That would mean the next fight is the right to bear arms, which I think will be hard to argue against with a straight face once the right to keep arms is settled. I do think the courts will give the states a fair amount of leeway in how the right to bear arms is handled, much like states get a fair amount of leeway in deciding how to handle elections. I do think there is a good chance that some of the worst offender states may well make some preemptive changes to their carry laws in the hopes that the courts will see fit to leave something in place.
There is at least some chance that the courts will rule that bearing arms means to do so in an obvious way, so only open carry is covered under the 2A. That could lead to making CC permits a whole lot easier to get.
Should be an interesting couple of decades.
- Status
