Another article about the NYC SCOTUS case

ProgSpear

ProgSpear

.338 Win Mag
Messages
5,716
Reaction score
8,400
Location
Geometric center of a hostile state.
One of the key bullet points in the article; "The City must provide actual evidence and cannot rely instead on shoddy reasoning or data."

This leads me to a critical question; Does this mean Mother Jones is no longer an authoritative source on 2A related issues?

Sorry, I know that the idea of strict scrutiny is serious, but I just couldn't resist the jab.
 
R

RBean

.40 S&W
Messages
208
Reaction score
674
Location
Brooklyn, NY
Hello Celt. Never invite a lawyer to talk/write. But since you invited me to, here is what I think: Obviously Judges in New York bend over backwards to avoid enforcing the 2nd Amendment. An example of that is the Magistrate's recommendation denying Napolitaino's motion for a preliminary injunction because "in New York you don't have a right to possess a handgun." TOTALLY CONTRARY TO HELLER. Then when we appeal to the District Judge, with a single signature the police return his pistol license. Case cost the citizen over $10,000.00 and the government nothing. That made our motion moot because the police did what we demanded. When the District Judge asked me if I would dismiss the case, I said "why? as soon as we dismiss this case the police can revoke or suspend his license again. We did agree to wait to see what the Supreme Court will say in the above NYC case.

I don't think the Supreme Court will dismiss the case, even if NYC changes the law. Remember, NYC can't control what someone does out side its jurisdiction. As soon as you cross the city limits you are out of their control. Instead, the police institute a regulation and if you violate that regulation they will revoke your pistol permit. It is this very "unlimited authority of the licensing officer" that enables the city to enforce this rule. Otherwise you could just give the city the finger. Remember under PL 400 they can "suspend or revoke you permit at any time" and for "any good reason" and they get to decide what that "good reason" is. This is without any hearing or due process before a "neutral judge." And when the permit is suspended or revoked you can't possess a pistol in you home, in violation of Heller. I think there is a real good chance that PL 400 will be struck down. Striking down does not require strict scrutiny. It is unconstitutional under intermediate scrutiny if honestly applied (which the 2nd Cir does not do, at lease didn't in the NYSRA v NYC case). PL 400 does not just violate the 2nd Amendment, but also the 1st- free teach, 5th -against self incrimination and property and both the 5th & 14th re property and"due process."

Now, will strict scrutiny be applied? Maybe but probably not to all gun laws. I think Heller didn't define any level of scrutiny because the majority was having trouble keeping Kennedy on their side. I think strict scrutiny will be applied to some gun laws, but how far they well go, I don't think any one knows. I don't think they know.

For what it is worth, those are my thoughts. The Supreme Court didn't take this case just because of its affect on the very few people who have NYC premises permits. Other lawyers I have spoken with think it will be decided strictly on the Commerce Claus, but I think it will be broader than that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top