2nd Circuit Court is alive and well

[Zerex]

Citing SCOTUS, Second Circuit vacates case upholding NYC premises permitting scheme

bearingarms.com

While we wait the 2nd Circuit to issue new rulings to NYS on Bruen...it HAS acted on at least one case, post Bruen.

It remanded a case on gun ownership in the home, back down to the NYC Court that said "too bad", to a man who wanted to keep a rifle or shotgun at home in the Bronx.
City said.."no compelling need for a gun."

Bruen now has to be applied..........we will see how this works out...........

The rest of what the 2nd is doing in secret, with Bruen and Hochal, will have to wait a bit longer.

 

[redtail]

Tease.

 

[C3D]

I wouldn't worry about the 2d Circuit trying to screw with the RKBA, they will be very creative and thorough in their mis-application of Bruen to hose lawful gun owners.

 

[ronstar]

That's odd. I lived in NYC until last year and successfully applied for a rifle/shotgun permit a decade earlier. You dont have to give a reason to apply, you just do so and most people easily get them after 3 months. Its pretty much Shall Issue in NYC for Rifle/Shotgun permits.

 

[FP1201]

That's odd. I lived in NYC until last year and successfully applied for a rifle/shotgun permit a decade earlier. You dont have to give a reason to apply, you just do so and most people easily get them after 3 months. Its pretty much Shall Issue in NYC for Rifle/Shotgun permits.

a decade earlier we didn't have the SAFE Act either.
Shouldn't need a permit for a long gun either, let alone take 3 months to process.

 

[Truebeliever]

That's odd. I lived in NYC until last year and successfully applied for a rifle/shotgun permit a decade earlier. You dont have to give a reason to apply, you just do so and most people easily get them after 3 months. Its pretty much Shall Issue in NYC for Rifle/Shotgun permits.

Something isn’t right in the description of the case. You don’t need a reason for a shotgun/rifle permit in NYC.
Something else probably flagged his denial of the permit.
Either way, it’s a good sign that they reversed their own ruling and sent it back down to the district court.

 

[ronstar]

Something isn’t right in the description of the case. You don’t need a reason for a shotgun/rifle permit in NYC.
Something else probably flagged his denial of the permit.
Either way, it’s a good sign that they reversed their own ruling and sent it back down to the district court.

Yes he probably had some criminal conviction that needed to be explained.

Like I said pretty much everyone who applies gets the permit unless the police find some sort of reason not to give it to them

 

[Gunright]

Something isn’t right in the description of the case. You don’t need a reason for a shotgun/rifle permit in NYC.
Something else probably flagged his denial of the permit.
Either way, it’s a good sign that they reversed their own ruling and sent it back down to the district court.

Did you read the case?

In approximately 2018, Alan Taveras applied for a license to possess a rifle
or shotgun for self-protection at his residence in the Bronx, New York. Licensing
officers within the New York City Police Department denied Taveras’s
application, citing his August 2011 arrest for domestic violence, a corresponding
order of protection against him, and a November 2011 domestic violence
complaint against him by the same victim. The order of protection expired in
February 2012, and the criminal charges were ultimately dropped.

Following the denial of his application for a rifle or shotgun license, Taveras
brought this action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York. He alleged that the Second Amendment to the United States
Constitution protects his right to keep a rifle or shotgun at his residence, and he
sought, among other forms of relief, an injunction barring New York City (the
“City”) from denying a license because of an applicant’s “history” of domestic
violence and orders of protection when none of these incidents resulted in
conviction. See, e.g., 38 Rules of City of N.Y. § 3-03(a), (f), (g), (n) (setting forth
various grounds, all potentially applicable to Taveras, for denial of a license).

The district court dismissed Taveras’s suit. Applying what was then the
law of this Circuit, the district court explained that the challenged regulations do
not burden what we have held to be “the ‘core’ protection of the Second
Amendment,” which “is the ‘right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms
in defense of hearth and home,’” because the City’s regulations restricting firearm
access for those with a history of domestic violence burden only those who are not
law-abiding and responsible.

So, even though he was not convicted of jack-shit, he was denied.

 

[Truebeliever]

Did you read the case?

In approximately 2018, Alan Taveras applied for a license to possess a rifle
or shotgun for self-protection at his residence in the Bronx, New York. Licensing
officers within the New York City Police Department denied Taveras’s
application, citing his August 2011 arrest for domestic violence, a corresponding
order of protection against him, and a November 2011 domestic violence
complaint against him by the same victim. The order of protection expired in
February 2012, and the criminal charges were ultimately dropped.

Following the denial of his application for a rifle or shotgun license, Taveras
brought this action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York. He alleged that the Second Amendment to the United States
Constitution protects his right to keep a rifle or shotgun at his residence, and he
sought, among other forms of relief, an injunction barring New York City (the
“City”) from denying a license because of an applicant’s “history” of domestic
violence and orders of protection when none of these incidents resulted in
conviction. See, e.g., 38 Rules of City of N.Y. § 3-03(a), (f), (g), (n) (setting forth
various grounds, all potentially applicable to Taveras, for denial of a license).

The district court dismissed Taveras’s suit. Applying what was then the
law of this Circuit, the district court explained that the challenged regulations do
not burden what we have held to be “the ‘core’ protection of the Second
Amendment,” which “is the ‘right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms
in defense of hearth and home,’” because the City’s regulations restricting firearm
access for those with a history of domestic violence burden only those who are not
law-abiding and responsible.

So, even though he was not convicted of jack-shit, he was denied.

You just proved what I said about the rifle permit. You don’t need to show good cause for the rifle permit. They found something in his background they didn’t like. The man doesn’t have to show good cause. But the NYPD licensing officers think they found cause to deny him.
It’s different than Bruen that they feel they have cause to deny him. He failed the background check. Is it morally or legally right? I don’t know. I would want to see all of the Domestic Incident Reports and were any of the arrests diverted to non-incarceration programs i.e. no conviction as a matter of policy but he did the crime.
Often, if you complete an anger management program and such and such, they decline to prosecute. Even in clear cut cases and confessions with it.
It can be more complicated then conviction/no conviction. But I think the state should have to prove it just like they do for civil confinement cases.

 

[Acer-m14]

if a person is still out roaming in public they should have all there rights .. PERIOD!!

 

[Grimscale]

He was arrested for domestic violence, and a complaint for that was also filed a month later.
But it never went to court and the charges were dropped. At that point he should have had all of his Rights restored. Particularly if there were no other signs of "domestic violence" in the six years between when the charges were dropped and he applied for the rifle/shotgun permit.

 

[Saltwater60]

You just proved what I said about the rifle permit. You don’t need to show good cause for the rifle permit. They found something in his background they didn’t like. The man doesn’t have to show good cause. But the NYPD licensing officers think they found cause to deny him.
It’s different than Bruen that they feel they have cause to deny him. He failed the background check. Is it morally or legally right? I don’t know. I would want to see all of the Domestic Incident Reports and were any of the arrests diverted to non-incarceration programs i.e. no conviction as a matter of policy but he did the crime.
Often, if you complete an anger management program and such and such, they decline to prosecute. Even in clear cut cases and confessions with it.
It can be more complicated then conviction/no conviction. But I think the state should have to prove it just like they do for civil confinement cases.

It said charges were dropped, they were dropped end of story for me. If he’s that bad of a guy the DA should have done their jobs and prosecuted. They didn’t so now it’s pretty tough to hold it against him.

 

[Truebeliever]

It said charges were dropped, they were dropped end of story for me. If he’s that bad of a guy the DA should have done their jobs and prosecuted. They didn’t so now it’s pretty tough to hold it against him.

Are you kidding about the Bronx DA? The Bronx DAs office was “woke” before the word was made up.
As I said, the licensing officer should have have to go to court like a civil confinement order to prove the person is unfit—a show cause to deny. Yes, a civil confinement order denies a person freedom without a conviction of a current crime.
But if the guy wins, it makes it harder for the government to deny my freedoms.

 

[Saltwater60]

Are you kidding about the Bronx DA? The Bronx DAs office was “woke” before the word was made up.
As I said, the licensing officer should have have to go to court like a civil confinement order to prove the person is unfit—a show cause to deny. Yes, a civil confinement order denies a person freedom without a conviction of a current crime.
But if the guy wins, it makes it harder for the government to deny my freedoms.

The problem is just because allegations were made doesn’t make them true. Some allegations were made against a close family member and the allegations made are almost impossible to have happened without others in the room noticing. The cops investigated and nothing has come of it and the person who made the allocations never followed through on anything.
I feel we are at a point where judges will side with the prosecution to avoid being wrong and getting canceled. Look what’s happening to the Supreme Court justices. Also so what if the DA is woke or not. I thought they hated domestic abusers and sexual assault so why wouldn’t they prosecute? I know the answer, but I’m just trying to make a point. Maybe the guy is horrible, but I’d think not since he took it this far.
This is just a question, but do you think if Hunter Biden applied do you think he would get approved? I’ll bet he would.

 

[Truebeliever]

The problem is just because allegations were made doesn’t make them true. Some allegations were made against a close family member and the allegations made are almost impossible to have happened without others in the room noticing. The cops investigated and nothing has come of it and the person who made the allocations never followed through on anything.
I feel we are at a point where judges will side with the prosecution to avoid being wrong and getting canceled. Look what’s happening to the Supreme Court justices. Also so what if the DA is woke or not. I thought they hated domestic abusers and sexual assault so why wouldn’t they prosecute? I know the answer, but I’m just trying to make a point. Maybe the guy is horrible, but I’d think not since he took it this far.
This is just a question, but do you think if Hunter Biden applied do you think he would get approved? I’ll bet he would.

Are you kidding? The woke DAs cut everyone a break unless you fit a certain agenda like self defense or if the person is cop. They were doing the alternative to incarceration programs for decades before the whole bail reform stuff. This includes drug rehab instead of a conviction despite dealing kilos of illegal drugs and no evidence of the defendant having a drug addiction.
I don’t know if the guy did domestic violence or other things. But there are people who shouldn’t be on the street who are and shouldn’t have a gun.
Do you think someone who committed a murder at 15, sent to a juvenile facility, until they were 21, should be able to get a gun permit upon release? Remember, they don’t have a conviction on their record.
There should be a legal process to stop someone who has been taken to the psych ward numerous times but never formally committed because they gave him a shot of some drug and released him back into society. Someone who has a history of not taking their psych meds and going crazy shouldn’t have a gun. But they are released without formal commitment all the time.
A legal process that unlike how these Red flag laws are written, actually provide due process before guns are taken away and the burden is on the state to prove its case.

 

[US RIFLE M1A]

I met a guy who kept putting his car into trees, bushes, store fronts, etc due to a drinking problem. Difficulty was that he ran a company which provided high-paying jobs in a small city which was otherwise decaying.

Never did time, just got an ankle monitor. I would not have trusted him with a water gun.

 

[Defilade]

I met a guy who kept putting his car into trees, bushes, store fronts, etc due to a drinking problem. Difficulty was that he ran a company which provided high-paying jobs in a small city which was otherwise decaying.

Never did time, just got an ankle monitor. I would not have trusted him with a water gun.

You mean you wouldn't go for a ride with him? lol

 

[Saltwater60]

Are you kidding? The woke DAs cut everyone a break unless you fit a certain agenda like self defense or if the person is cop. They were doing the alternative to incarceration programs for decades before the whole bail reform stuff. This includes drug rehab instead of a conviction despite dealing kilos of illegal drugs and no evidence of the defendant having a drug addiction.
I don’t know if the guy did domestic violence or other things. But there are people who shouldn’t be on the street who are and shouldn’t have a gun.
Do you think someone who committed a murder at 15, sent to a juvenile facility, until they were 21, should be able to get a gun permit upon release? Remember, they don’t have a conviction on their record.
There should be a legal process to stop someone who has been taken to the psych ward numerous times but never formally committed because they gave him a shot of some drug and released him back into society. Someone who has a history of not taking their psych meds and going crazy shouldn’t have a gun. But they are released without formal commitment all the time.
A legal process that unlike how these Red flag laws are written, actually provide due process before guns are taken away and the burden is on the state to prove its case.

Those are complete system failures and yes they need to change. It’s absurd that a 15 year old that committed a murder has no conviction on record and I also don’t believe that a judge can’t see that.
As for the mental illness situation you described the same. It’s a systems failure and if we don’t follow the rules because it’s too expensive or too mean then yes that person will be able to obtain a gun. We’ve seen it numerous times and no they shouldn’t be able to get a gun. My standard is violent felonies, mental disordered that have violent or irrational tendencies, and multiple other crimes that are serious and you shouldn’t be able to get a gun. Outside that I think I should be able to own almost anything I please up to and including suppressors, machine guns, and anything lesser than that.

 

[Saltwater60]

I met a guy who kept putting his car into trees, bushes, store fronts, etc due to a drinking problem. Difficulty was that he ran a company which provided high-paying jobs in a small city which was otherwise decaying.

Never did time, just got an ankle monitor. I would not have trusted him with a water gun.

Sounds like my cousin. Hasn’t had a drivers license in 15+ years.

 

[Truebeliever]

Those are complete system failures and yes they need to change. It’s absurd that a 15 year old that committed a murder has no conviction on record and I also don’t believe that a judge can’t see that.
As for the mental illness situation you described the same. It’s a systems failure and if we don’t follow the rules because it’s too expensive or too mean then yes that person will be able to obtain a gun. We’ve seen it numerous times and no they shouldn’t be able to get a gun. My standard is violent felonies, mental disordered that have violent or irrational tendencies, and multiple other crimes that are serious and you shouldn’t be able to get a gun. Outside that I think I should be able to own almost anything I please up to and including suppressors, machine guns, and anything lesser than that.

The licensing officer or judge can’t always see that. Especially if the person was from out of state. But that’s just an example of what I am taking about in how the background investigation can find things beyond that they have no convictions on their record. And in reality, the juvenile convictions are redacted from the report the judges get before sentencing an adult . They don’t know what the juvenile arrest/conviction was for .

There is no metal illness central databank for those who were forced to undergo an evaluation if they weren’t committed. So if they are given medication that stabilizes them and out in an outpatient program, it’s not known unless local EMS records are accessible.
Why is it that they aren’t committed once medication stabilized them? A SCOTUS decision.

 

[Gunright]

The licensing officer or judge can’t always see that. Especially if the person was from out of state. But that’s just an example of what I am taking about in how the background investigation can find things beyond that they have no convictions on their record. And in reality, the juvenile convictions are redacted from the report the judges get before sentencing an adult . They don’t know what the juvenile arrest/conviction was for .

There is no metal illness central databank for those who were forced to undergo an evaluation if they weren’t committed. So if they are given medication that stabilizes them and out in an outpatient program, it’s not known unless local EMS records are accessible.
Why is it that they aren’t committed once medication stabilized them? A SCOTUS decision.

I'm at the point where I don't care, I am tired of the excuses. The criteria should be simple - no felony or serious violence conviction = shall issue. The process rules should be known up front and transparent in terms of the decision factors.

If there are problems with youth records not being available, fix it or go on. Accusations of a crime is NOT a good enough reason to take away 2A rights- conviction (adjudication) is required.

 

[Truebeliever]

I'm at the point where I don't care, I am tired of the excuses. The criteria should be simple - no felony or serious violence conviction = shall issue. The process rules should be known up front and transparent in terms of the decision factors.

If there are problems with youth records not being available, fix it or go on. Accusations of a crime is NOT a good enough reason to take away 2A rights- conviction (adjudication) is required.

In general I agree but if the person went to an alternative to detention program, they don’t convict the person if they go to the program like drug rehab. This includes drug dealers , violent offenses including domestic violence. They are intentionally “ not convicted “ because the minimum sentences would apply if they were. It’s the DA’s way of getting around the law.

 

[Grimscale]

In general I agree but if the person went to an alternative to detention program, they don’t convict the person if they go to the program like drug rehab. This includes drug dealers , violent offenses including domestic violence. They are intentionally “ not convicted “ because the minimum sentences would apply if they were. It’s the DA’s way of getting around the law.

Which sounds like a breakdown in the process.
So fix that.
Otherwise, all you do is leave it open to subjective criteria which is WRONG.

 

[Truebeliever]

Which sounds like a breakdown in the process.
So fix that.
Otherwise, all you do is leave it open to subjective criteria which is WRONG.

Subjective criteria? You are right. If they codified it, like what psychological medicines have you been prescribed and for what would that satisfy your concerns?
Remember that that a lot of schizophrenics have never been committed but only outpatient. Can a licensing officer place an application on hold to find out what the person was treated for if they found a record of the person being transported to the psych ward? And numerous times?
Some of that would be subjective .
What about a domestic violence case where there is evidence of multiple assaults on the person but no conviction due to various factors. None pointed to actual innocence. A problem with the system. Absolutely.
Here is an example of someone who should not have a gun and depending if he was convicted of drug use, might not be kept from getting a gun by current federal standards. Drug addiction could be a subjective thing as well.

Shoplifter who even DA Alvin Bragg wanted locked up is let go after 122nd arrest — thanks to bail laws

“We cannot accept a system where individuals who shoplift again and again cycle in and out of jail, just to shoplift again,’’ Bragg said.

nypost.com

Do you think he should be denied a permit after the state goes to court, where they have the burden to show the person is unfit, with a free defense lawyer BEFORE any guns are taken or a permit denied?
I have no problem with the above if the subjective” unfit” is hard standard to prove . Not much different than involuntary commitment standards .

 

[Grimscale]

Absent a conviction you should not lose your Rights. It's really that simple.

 

[ronstar]

Absent a conviction you should not lose your Rights. It's really that simple.

Current Supreme Court already stated that the Bruen case does not strip States the authority to take away gun rights from those who are mentally/emotionally unfit to possess a firearm. No conviction necessary.

"Kavanaugh includes a large block quote from the Heller decision to underscore that the majority decision had not stripped the ability of the government to regulate guns in every manner. Those regulations mentioned as permissible include “possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” But that list is not “exhaustive,” meaning others could exist."

Justice Scalia affirmed this in Heller.

"The Second Amendment right is not unlimited. We do not cast doubt on concealed-weapons prohibitions, laws barring possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, laws barring firearms in sensitive places like schools and government buildings, and laws imposing conditions on commercial sale of arms. "

 

[Defilade]

Current Supreme Court already stated that the Bruen case does not strip States the authority to take away gun rights from those who are mentally/emotionally unfit to possess a firearm. No conviction necessary.

"Kavanaugh includes a large block quote from the Heller decision to underscore that the majority decision had not stripped the ability of the government to regulate guns in every manner. Those regulations mentioned as permissible include “possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” But that list is not “exhaustive,” meaning others could exist."

Justice Scalia affirmed this in Heller.

"The Second Amendment right is not unlimited. We do not cast doubt on concealed-weapons prohibitions, laws barring possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, laws barring firearms in sensitive places like schools and government buildings, and laws imposing conditions on commercial sale of arms. "

Love how "Gray Areas" are always in these rulings. Where in the 2nd did Scalia come to the conclusion that the 2nd is not unlimited? Not seeing it nor do I "interpret" that way. The "Will not be Infringed " seems to nullify any "Not unlimited " Opinion.

 

[Acer-m14]

Justice Scalia affirmed this in Heller.

"The Second Amendment right is not unlimited. We do not cast doubt on concealed-weapons prohibitions, laws barring possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, laws barring firearms in sensitive places like schools and government buildings, and laws imposing conditions on commercial sale of arms. "

and he just got Trumped by Thomas in Bruen .. History / Text / Tradition .. is the new RULE to follow .. the 2nd isn't the step child anymore

 

[redtail]

Communists don’t respect or give a damn what SCOTUS or the BOR says.

 

[ronstar]

Love how "Gray Areas" are always in these rulings. Where in the 2nd did Scalia come to the conclusion that the 2nd is not unlimited? Not seeing it nor do I "interpret" that way. The "Will not be Infringed " seems to nullify any "Not unlimited " Opinion.

They are Scalia's words. He validates some gun regulations. Kavanaugh repeated Scalia's words in his Bruen opinion.