Two of a three-member panel of U.S. circuit judges express openness to reviewing constitutionality o
- Thread starter Deplorable Me
- Start date
Great, I doubt it goes anywhere in NY. This will need to see SCOTUS but that is still iffy.
@thewheels
.308 Win
I'm sure the 2nd circus will follow the constitution with it's ruling.
Hey Heller...
Hey Heller...
kev74
20×102mm Vulcan
That was a pretty positive report from a NY news outlet.
I've read their petition. I have little doubt that the 2nd. circuit will rule against it. But, I do think it is actually well written, legally sound, and I think that if it gets to SCOTUS, we could win.
We'll see.
Saltwater60
.950 JDJ
He’s right it’s completwly arbitrary in enforcement and discretion. Do away with permits USA wide. They will cave so this doesn’t go to scotus.
oc shooter
.223 Rem
hopeing
@thewheels
.308 Win
Does the petition have any references to:
“If the State converts a right (liberty) into a privilege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right (liberty) with impunity.” (Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, Alabama, 373 U.S. 262)
“No state shall convert a liberty into a license, and charge a fee therefore.” (Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105)
If it doesn't it should and there more cases than just those two.
FrankenCub
.338 Win Mag
You all know what to do with your hands...
Burzum
.223 Rem
F-N retarded journalists, ONLY FOUR JUSTICES ARE NEEDED TO DECIDE TO HEAR A CASE AND GRANT IT REVIEW not five as the moron said in the video.........journalists are such tards.
here is my source so you know that I am not wrong-like the journalist:
Supreme Court Procedures
Anyway many, but not all, circuits, and most lean liberal, have since Heller/MacDonald separated two types of tests for possessing and bearing handguns for self defense, 1) in the home and 2) in public.
Protection in the home has a higher standard for the government to meet than in the right to possess in public, thus in most circuits Sullivan would be struck down, for simple lawful possession on ones property and in their home in some cases received near strict scrutiny, carrying in public is all over the place, but basic lawful possession on ones premises should prevail against NYS.
here is my source so you know that I am not wrong-like the journalist:
Supreme Court Procedures
Anyway many, but not all, circuits, and most lean liberal, have since Heller/MacDonald separated two types of tests for possessing and bearing handguns for self defense, 1) in the home and 2) in public.
Protection in the home has a higher standard for the government to meet than in the right to possess in public, thus in most circuits Sullivan would be struck down, for simple lawful possession on ones property and in their home in some cases received near strict scrutiny, carrying in public is all over the place, but basic lawful possession on ones premises should prevail against NYS.
Last edited:
Acer-m14
20×102mm Vulcan
but trying to find a FFL in NY to sell you a pistol with just a 4473 is not going to happen .,.. but it FUAC .. should .. then there is the problem of getting caught with it ..
PS : BP pistols not included ..
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Didn't know about that one. Further proof that the current courts are corrupt. They won't even enforce a previous ruling from their own damned court.
This country is beyond repair.
Acer-m14
20×102mm Vulcan
i thought you seen that in the thread i did saying its going to be a long one ..
but now ya know ..
Acer-m14
20×102mm Vulcan
@Willjr75
All gun laws, rules and policies are unconstitutional and must be eliminated!
Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137: “The Constitution of these United States is the supreme law of
the land. Any law that is repugnant to the Constitution is null and void of law.”
Murdock v. Penn., 319 US 105: “No state shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and
attach a fee to it.”
All gun laws, rules and policies are unconstitutional and must be eliminated!
Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137: “The Constitution of these United States is the supreme law of
the land. Any law that is repugnant to the Constitution is null and void of law.”
Murdock v. Penn., 319 US 105: “No state shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and
attach a fee to it.”
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Tell that to the Truebeliever dude and his Fudd friend.
Acer-m14
20×102mm Vulcan
@Willjr75 here is another goodie .,.. even before the 2A LOL ..
Puckle gun - Wikipedia
yea are founders were not stupid ..
Puckle gun - Wikipedia
yea are founders were not stupid ..
ArmedCorgi
.475 A&M Magnum
The case before the supreme court concerning NYC's laws will probably weight heavy on what happens with this one. As of now I am very cautiously optimistic.
@thewheels
.308 Win
but trying to find a FFL in NY to sell you a pistol with just a 4473 is not going to happen .,.. but it FUAC .. should .. then there is the problem of getting caught with it ..
PS : BP pistols not included ..
If only there were some unlicensed FFL's that would handle the transfers.
It's good you are trying to do research! But the problem with it is the incorporation of the Second Amendment did not happen until 2010.
Incorporation of the Bill of Rights - Wikipedia
In the 2010 landmark case McDonald v. Chicago, the Supreme Court declared the Second Amendment is incorporated through the Due Process Clause. However, Justice Thomas, the fifth justice in the majority, criticized substantive due process and declared instead that he reached the same incorporation only through the Privileges or Immunities Clause.[21] No other justice attempted to question his rationale. This is considered by some as a "revival" of the Privileges or Immunities Clause,[22] however as it is a concurring opinion and not the majority opinion in the case, it is not binding precedent in lower courts; it is merely an indication that SCOTUS may be inclined, given the proper question, to reconsider and ultimately reverse the Slaughterhouse Cases.
And Murdock v Penn was in 1943 after the SCOTUS had already given an opinion that concealed weapons could be prohibited in 1898
FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.
Thus, the freedom of speech and of the press ( article 1) does not permit the publication of libels, blasphemous or indecent articles, or other publications injurious to public morals or private reputation; the right of the people [165 U.S. 275, 282] to keep and bear arms (article 2) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons; the provision that no person shall be twice put in jeopardy (article 5) does not prevent a second trial, if upon the first trial the jury failed to agree, or if the verdict was set aside upon the defendant's motion.
I'm not saying that any of those case's would not help with current laws, But the one's before 2010 would need to be retried to change them.
Last edited:
Acer-m14
20×102mm Vulcan
this is the main one ..
keep passing laws and keep passing laws .. courts put there BS ruling out trying to change it .. still does not mean a crap ..
you have to remove the 2A first from the Document .. SHALL NOT!!!
or Change it to Shall Maybe ..
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Or shall not be infringed except for unusual weapons and concealed handguns.
Acer-m14
20×102mm Vulcan
then there is that puckel gun LOL .. pew pew pew LOL it don't care lol
dwa12479
.338 Win Mag
Hate to be the pessimist in the crowd, but my prediction is the 2nd Circus rules against Jim and SCOTUS denies cert.
FrankenCub
.338 Win Mag
That's called being a realist.
ArmedCorgi
.475 A&M Magnum
You don't win fights by going in to them with the attitude you already lost.
That's called being a defeatist.
By what you guys stated, Jim shouldn't even be trying. That's how you stay oppressed.
FrankenCub
.338 Win Mag
I have no problem with him trying, but lets get real, this is NY. The courts are stacked against Liberty and we all know it. It doesn't matter if he even has a cut and dry case that that should win without hesitation, the courts he has to deal with will not see it that way. It will be seen through liberal tears.
ArmedCorgi
.475 A&M Magnum
Being optimistic and supporting a cause doesn't mean you are blind to the "realities" of what you are up against. We all know what we are up against here in NY. Jim Ostrowski most definitely knows what he is up against and yet he is doing this on a shoe string budget, against all odds. That should garner strength and hope because thank God there are people like that out there who try and help our cause and we should support that as best we can. Support starts with not immediately condemning the effort to failure. I get the skepticism, but I don't get the defeatism. Small, grassroots efforts are what is going to affect the most change here in NY and we should all lend support to those efforts. Do you think the left got to where it is now because they had a defeatist attitude about every issue and loss or set back they faced? Did they lose cases? Yes, but they kept on going. There is such a thing as the long game and while instant gratification is always nice in circumstances like this, I doubt most on this forum subscribe to the idea of instant gratification being a right and to expect it. I think most would argue that hard work over time yields results. Sometimes "being real" about an issue or situation, holds you back from achieving your goals.
RBean
.40 S&W
You are correct that it is an uphill battle in NY. In the Napolitano case the magistrate in USEDNY said we can't get our injunction against the Nassau County Police Department because "In New York there is no right to possess a handgun in your home for defense." Funny how the Heller case was applied to the entire United States by McDonald, all except to New York. Appealed to the US District Judge. She will either sit on it or deny our injunction, in which case we will be appealing to the Second Circuit. To loose in the 2nd Cir, they will have to ignore Heller and McDonald and their own Kachalsky case. Maybe Ostrowski will get a positive decision, if so it will apply to Napolitano.