New York State Defeats Challenge to Gun Licensing Laws
- Thread starter gunpoliticsny
- Start date
Did anyone expect anything different??
Not sure how NY residents lack standing against a NY law... but ok.....
I would ask if they lacked standing than who does have it?
If I lack standing to challenge the law then I guess they lack standing to enforce the law upon me....
I would ask if they lacked standing than who does have it?
If I lack standing to challenge the law then I guess they lack standing to enforce the law upon me....
GOYABEAN
.950 JDJ
land being land 
S&W Fan
.475 A&M Magnum
This marxicrat POS and all his knob slobbing cronies need to take a long walk off a short pier . FUAC you POS 
elder care killer .
elder care killer .
Last edited:
The plaintiffs who applied for a license and received it lack standing because there is no injury. Similarly the plaintiffs who never applied for a license lack standing because they are challenging a statute for which they are eligible to apply and could receive a license but have failed to apply for it. The claims that Libertarian Party lacked standing were never responded to so judge ruled they abandoned their claim. Ironically
claims by two plaintiffs who applied for a license but were denied still stand. One of those claimants had been arrested over 50 times and hasn't paid child support. Interested to see how that plays out.
BDinPutnam
.475 A&M Magnum
Excellent analysis.
Nothing ironic about it, those two *are* the only two that had standing.
MikeyCNY
6.5 Creedmoor
i'm-shocked-well-not-that-shocked.gif
Excellent analysis.
Nothing ironic about it, those two *are* the only two that had standing.
I'm not on board with dismissing claims against those who are challenging statute but never applied isn't that the whole point of their suit? Court is basically saying apply and get denied then you'll have a valid claim....
ETA by ironic I mean our hope to get this suit settled in our favor rests in part on a guy who has been arrested over 50 times and is apparently a deadbeat dad to boot.
Last edited:
I have a feeling if they apply now they will be approved in record time. Probably within a week.
BDinPutnam
.475 A&M Magnum
Have to have some skin in the game. How were they "harmed" if they hadn't actually applied? Now maybe a case could be made that they were forcibly unable to apply but they didn't make that case.
We could argue all day that the application itself is an infringement but that argument has never flown anywhere to my knowledge.
I get the legal analysis I guess my heart is with those living in other states with much less restrictive and burdensome processes, if any at all...
BDinPutnam
.475 A&M Magnum
I'm with ya, man.
IrishMick
.44 mag
I've always been confused that the Sullivan Act can still be legal. Didn't the Heller decision declare that people have a right to have a handgun in the home? How is it that here in NYS that you can't purchase one for that? I can see the carry restrictions being upheld as there is no legal decision regarding the right to carry (if you discount the actual 2A "Keep and Bear Arms"). But shouldn't citizens in NYS be able to purchase a handgun to defend themselves in the home without the May Issue burden imposed by the Sullivan Act?
spat
.700 Nitro Express
Somehow I bet if someone was suing over a voter ID requirement, they wouldn't have thrown it out just because they didn't apply for the ID.
BDinPutnam
.475 A&M Magnum
And you absolutely can. If you jump thru their hoops. Which has been upheld, and upheld, and upheld as perfectly constitutional.
Do I agree with it? No.
whatwasithinking
.40 S&W
Unless you can legally challenge said restrictive and burdensome process based on the fact that it does infringe on your 2A rights as compared to other states.
I am not a lawyer though ...
The Federal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that open carry is a part of the 2A but concealed could be regulated. Unfortunately that means nothing to NY.
IrishMick
.44 mag
@BDinPutnam Thats what I'm saying is that the May Issue hoops of Sullivan is at odds with Heller decision. It seems that a right to possess a handgun in the home has been affirmed by SCOTUS. If so then the State Law requiring me to apply for a permit to purchase and possess one which they may issue if they decide I have provided a special need that passes their approval would seem to be at odds with Heller and my right to own one. (As I hear it on this forum I can't even hold a handgun at the store without one, however different argument). I'm not talking about carrying either concealed or openly but simple possession and ownership. Also calling out other may issue licensing schemes such as the Illinois FOID system and Massachusetts FID system and whatever the fuck the lunatics in California come up with on a daily basis. A "Right", as the possession of a handgun in the home as per Heller, cannot be dispensed at the whim of the licensing authority upon demonstration of "good cause" or "special need". I know that the Second Circuit has upheld these laws but they seem to fly in the face of the SCOTUS ruling in Heller.
They can buy a shotgun.
Boom......not infringed.
BDinPutnam
.475 A&M Magnum
This is why I have been waiting to see a court case brought involving a situation like the tragedy in NJ where the poor woman couldn't buy anything at all because she was waiting for her NJ FOID card and was killed by her ex-boyfriend on the front lawn because she had no way to defend herself.
Of course in that case, there's no one with standing to bring the case against NJ because the woman is DEAD.
Licensing schemes, generally, have been upheld as not unconstitutional. I'm not saying thats right, but that has been the case.
My main issue with all of this is the fact that NYS citizens do not have equal rights under the law.
For instance.......
A guy in WNY who is chronically unemployed, uses drugs, as multiple misdemeanor convictions and kicks his dog can carry a handgun from day one with zero training.
Then, a guy in Eastern NY who is a 22 year Marine veteran with 7 medals, a great job, never had a speeding ticket who loves his dog cannot carry a handgun EVER!!!
This all just seems clearly and obviously wrong.
Id like to hear the explanation of how this happens and how its fair from a legal scholar.
People from all over the country, from both sides of the gun issue, find this a fascinating thing.
For instance.......
A guy in WNY who is chronically unemployed, uses drugs, as multiple misdemeanor convictions and kicks his dog can carry a handgun from day one with zero training.
Then, a guy in Eastern NY who is a 22 year Marine veteran with 7 medals, a great job, never had a speeding ticket who loves his dog cannot carry a handgun EVER!!!
This all just seems clearly and obviously wrong.
Id like to hear the explanation of how this happens and how its fair from a legal scholar.
People from all over the country, from both sides of the gun issue, find this a fascinating thing.
Yeah but so could Heller... the case moved forward because he applied to own a handgun and was denied.
And for what its worth shotguns aren't (usually) firearms in NYistan lol...
BDinPutnam
.475 A&M Magnum
@Criticalt one of the other cases I'd love to see brought in NY is someone who has an unrestricted permit who moves to another county and is denied an unrestricted. It will probably never happen because the state would have to admit that the county by county licensing scheme on its face would seem to violate equal protection under the state constitution, never mind the US constitution.
@cgrutt - Heller was denied a permit so he had demonstrated harm which is why he was able to file suit.
@cgrutt - Heller was denied a permit so he had demonstrated harm which is why he was able to file suit.
I know, im just saying that a judge can just say that even though you cant get a handgun, you can still have a gun......so, not infringed.
Even Heller says that some reasonable restrictions can apply.
Cant get a handgun doesn't seem to be a "reasonable" restriction in my view...
I get it still not right.
The problem is that for most people, being able to carry a handgun isnt worth the $50,000-$100,000 it can cost to fight it in court. With that money you can relocate to a friendlier state or county.
What needs to happen is we need to find a good case and have gun owners from all over the state donate money for the court case.
With just $100 a piece, we could come up with several hundred thousand pretty easily. But.....gun owners dont seem to vote together or work together very good.
If we attacked the courts the way the gays did in the early 2000s, we would be carrying mini guns to the grocery store.
How often are activist judges fair or "right"?
It seems the whole system has been rigged for many decades.