SCOTUS Will Hear NYC Gun Case

[OldState]

Honestly, I don't see this case as advancing firearms rights much because it is very limited in scope.

I’m not sure about a limited scope. I’m not sure they would have taken the case then.

The 14th Amendment has the left in a conundrum. The left loved how it eroded state sovereignty until it impacts something they are against...civilians bearing arms. The Bill of Rights was originally accepted as a restriction on only the FEDERAL government from interfearing with the natural rights of the citizens. The 14th has been interpreted to incorporate the states.

Scalia’s opinions in Heller provided an accurate and much needed historical context of the origins of the 2nd Amendment and the concept of natural rights. If the court finds that your natural and individual right of self defense extends to wherever you are physically, this challenges all state carry laws and could possibly lead to national reciprocity.

Another outcome of this could be to challenge how burdensome gun laws can be. I would love to see the court opine that there must a very high bar to prove any gun law (or any law impacting natural rights) will have a measurable impact on crime and that impact must be prortinate to the burden put on law abiding citizens. For example, you can’t ban tens of millions of civilians from owning common firearms based on cosmetics because those firearms are used in .0001% of crimes.

[THCDDM4]

Honestly, I don't see this case as advancing firearms rights much because it is very limited in scope.

The case is about people who Premise Permits in NYC being able to take the guns shooting at ranges outside of NY City and to legal residents elsewhere.

A Premise Permit in NYC allows the owner to keep the handgun loaded at home and take the gun shooting to ranges within NYC's 5 boroughs. It must be transported in a locked box with a trigger lock with the ammo in a separate container.

The whole NYC Premise permit is a confusing thing. It is something the average person can get, after spending over $400 in licensing fees and jumping through more hoops than any place else (more on that later). .

You cannot take the gun out of state, and if you try to fly out of state and present the gun and your license at the airport you will be busted and lose your license and firearms. That and not being able to take it to a range outside of NYC is what they are challenging.

This means that you can't take your guns to some nicer ranges that are just outside of NYC, since there are very few ranges in NYC and they tend to be a pain to get to logistically and with parking (assuming that you live in NYC and have a car).

When I lived in NYC decades ago, I lived on the Queens/Long Island border and would take my guns to an indoor range in Nassau County to shoot since that was the easiest range to drive to (about 30 min) and there was always plenty of parking. At that time NYC had a target permit, which allowed you to take the handgun target shooting with no restrictions as to where; but you were required to keep the gun unloaded and locked up at home. If you wanted to keep a gun loaded at home you had to get a premise permit, which at that time allowed you to keep it loaded at home, but only allowed you to take it shooting twice a year after writing the licensing bureau. So they combined the two into a premise permit, but added the restriction that you could not take the gun to a range outside the city. I had my handguns listed on both permits--so I could legally keep them loaded at home and take them to the range whenever I wanted to. At that time there was no restriction on travelling with the handgun to outside ranges or out of state, as long as the gun in a locked case and not loaded.

Just getting a this type of permit is more of a hassle than anyplace else in the US, and this is what should be challenged. First the application fee is over $400.

You are required to provide 3 letters of recommendation from people who have known you for at least 2 years who are not relatives: https://newyorkcityguns.com/function...nce_letter.pdf This is unreasonable. Because of the nature of our society, you may not have three people who have known you at least 2 years who are willing to sign a notorized statement. If you have just moved there you are SOL, because I don't think they can be people from out of state. This alone should be challenged.

Also, you have to provide them a list of anything greater than a parking ticket that you received, along with the date and I believe court record. Even if you have only received a few speeding tickets in your life, it is an undue burden to have to remember the dates and get court records from different places where you may have lived.

I believe you may also have to provide dates and explanations for any time you took a painkiller or sedative. Do they really expect someone who is over 25 to remember all of the dates when they may have been prescribed tylenol 3 for dental work or other things?

Once you have submitted your application it can take a year or more for it to get approved.

I think the above requirements presents an undue burden and should be challenged.

The whole object of this is to get people to take a look at the information required and say ****-it.

If you do get approved you, get a license and a paper called a purchase document, both of which are needed to allow you to purchase a handgun. Once you buy the gun you have to bring it back to One Police Plaza in NYC within 72 hours after purchase so they can "inspect" it and enter the make and serial number onto your license. If you want to buy a second gun, you have to write them requesting a purchase document and specify some info about the gun that you want to buy. You then get a letter telling you that the purchase document has been approved and have to travel to One Police Plaza to pick up the purchase document. You can only get one purchase document every 90 days, and if you want to own more than 3-4 handguns you must buy a safe and show them a receipt for it and pictures of it.

Getting a carry permit is a whole different deal. You have to show that you have a business that makes large bank deposits and provide a tax return for the business six months of of bank deposit or withdrawal slips that show a large amount of cash. Even then, you will typically be limited to carrying the gun only at certain times--like when you are making deposits to the bank or picking up money. You can get a premise permit for your business, but then you are not allowed to carry the gun outside of your business.

There are special Carry permits that famous people, celebrities, and people who can demonstrate some special may be able to get. Retired cops from NYC can get their permits comparatively easily as part of their retirement process.

My god, that is a ton of nonsense that needs to be struck down and never allowed again!

I'm sure the people shooting other people are following those laws...

[Ed L.]

It was late when I was wrote my previous post, which covers a very confusing topic--NYC handgun laws.

There were some things that I did not write clearly. The case is about people who in New York City who have Premise Permits for handguns in NYC being allowed to take those guns shooting at ranges outside of NY City and to legal residencies elsewhere.

There are also some things that I did not cover. There is plenty of ground for legal challenges because the laws make it overly difficult to own or possess a handgun that I suspect would be considered overly restrictive by the supreme court.

The entire NYC Pistol licensing system is now an online process where you register by email and fill it out online. This has been the case since 1998.

Here is a link I found to a PDF copy of a NYC handgun license application: http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/downloa...msComplete.pdf

There were some things that I did not include in my previous post regarding NYC and NY State pistol permits and applying for them.

In NY City and NY State you cannot own a handgun without a license. In NY State you typically need 3-4 people to write you notarized letters of recommendation as part of the application process. These people cannot be relatives and have to be from the county that you reside in. Again, in today's ever moving society and political atmosphere, it is hard to get 4 people who have known you for several years who may be willing to write you these letters of recommendation. Plus they will have to take time off from work to have these letters notarized unless they have a notary present at work. If you have just moved there you are out of luck because by definition you don't know anyone. This requirement needs to be struck from the licensing requirements and should be challenged in court.

You also need to have someone who is willing to safeguard the firearms in the event of your death or incapacity, and they need to fill out and sign a form as part of your application process.

Another dinger is many other counties of NY State is that you can be denied or lose your handgun license if you have or come down with certain medical conditions which they consider to endanger your ability to safeguard the gun. Some of these are overly broad and outdated. There was a case where a retired Police officer who had dealt with dangerous people on the job had his handgun license revoked because he had some type of electronic heart device. My bottom line is that if the physical condition does not disqualify you from having a driver's license, it should not stop you from having a handgun license. And many people who may be unable to drive from whatever reason can still safely manage firearms.

From the Nassau County, NY, pistol license guide as for reasons to remove a license: "The presence or occurrence of a disability or condition that may affect the licensee’s handling of a firearm, including but not limited to epilepsy, diabetes, fainting spells, blackouts, temporary loss of memory or nervous disorder."

Prohibiting people who have Diabetes from getting or maintaining a pistol permit? This is grossly outdated nonsense that needs to be challenged under the Americans With Disabilities Act. According to the CDC, almost 1/3 of the US population has diabetes or pre-diabetes. Over 10% of the US population has diabetes. Most diabetes is controllable, and if you feel your blood sugar is dropping you can simply consume some fast acting carbs like a class of non-diet soda or orange juice, or consume some candy or glucose tablets that can be easily carried with you, or is easily available everywhere.

Someone with diabetes needs to apply for a NY city or NY State permit and be denied, and then legally challenge it. Or someone with a permit needs to have their permit revoked because they have come down with diabetes and challenge the decision as discriminatory against someone who has a disability. Honestly, the police don't have access to the general public's medical records, so some people could hide some disqualifying medical conditions. But if the police ever did find out, you would have your license revoked for withholding information.

Anyway, my point is that there is a lot of ****ery regarding getting a pistol permit in NT City and NY State that needs to be challenged. As much as I dislike the rabid anti-gun governor governor Cuomo, much of this existed before Cuomo.

Another note on NY City gun laws. In New York state you can buy a longarm without requiring a permit. However, in NYC you are required to have a permit to own or buy a longarm. At least with longarms you are not restricted from taking them outside of NYC. However, NYC restricts the possession of a lot of longarms, including any long arm that has more than a 5 round magazine (I will get into this in a follow-up post).

Under the Heller decision the right of the government to regulate and license firearms is upheld, but I think if brought to court many aspects of NYC and NY State law would be ruled overly restrictive.

Here is the passage that I am referring to: "Justice Antonin Scalia’s opinion cautioned that “nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the 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.”

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

If the level of scrutiny and difficulty get whacked for state laws, that could end up being a huge win if we can't get AWB nulified. If you end up with the 'right' to guns, but that there can be rules about owning them- making sure that those rules aren't defacto bans, or so overreaching as to make possession impossible- getting decisions like these could be important. I hope that they don't end up being, but they could. We do need some base hits to get the ball rolling.

[Ed L.]

Now unto ****ery with longarms in NYC.

Handgun licensing in NYC and NY State dates back to the passage of the Sullivan act in 1911.

In 1967 New York City, under then Mayor John Lindsey, required a license to possess all longarms. I believe the licensing fee was set at $3.00 and a NYC councelman was supposed to be set at that amount. City Councilman Theodore Weiss, sponsor of the bill, solemnly promised that the $3 fee would never be raised, but that the city would always bear the brunt of the real costs of administering the law. The licensing fee for longarms is now $140.00.

NYC bans all longarms that have a magazine that holds more than 5 rounds. They do this by deliberately misinterpreting an admin code and have gone as far as to send letters to people who have leverguns in the city with 6 round magazines, telling them that they must either dispose of the gun or have it modified by a gunsmith so it holds no more than 5 rounds. Here is the admin code:

§ 10-306 Disposition, purchase and possession of ammunition and ammunition feeding devices.

b. No person may possess an ammunition feeding device which is designed for use in a rifle or shotgun and which is capable of holding more than five rounds of rifle or shotgun ammunition, unless such person is exempt from subdivision a of section 10-303.1 pursuant to section 10-305, provided that a dealer in rifles and shotguns may possess such ammunition feeding devices for the purpose of disposition authorized pursuant to subdivision a of this section.

The definition of "ammunition feeding device" for purposes of these rules can be found in § 10-301 paragraph 17 of the NYC Admin code:

17. "Ammunition feeding device." Magazines, belts, feedstrips, drums or clips capable of being attached to or utilized with firearms, rifles, shotguns or assault weapons."

The key words are "Capable of being attached to or utilized with." It suggests a separate device. However they are not interpreting it as such.

The law banned separate magazines or feeding devices like detachable magazines for longarms that held in excess of 5 rounds and semiauto longarms that held in excess of 5 rounds.

This is not the same as banning all longarms that had magazine capacities in excess of 5 rounds. However, it is now being interpreted by the NYPD licensing division to mean any longarm with a magazine capacity with an excess of 5 rounds. This is them putting their own draconian spin on it.

This is another thing that needs to be legally challenged.

[Ed L.]

If the level of scrutiny and difficulty get whacked for state laws, that could end up being a huge win if we can't get AWB nulified. If you end up with the 'right' to guns, but that there can be rules about owning them- making sure that those rules aren't defacto bans, or so overreaching as to make possession impossible- getting decisions like these could be important. I hope that they don't end up being, but they could. We do need some base hits to get the ball rolling.

This is a good point and exactly what I am thinking. I think many of the aspects of NY City's and NY State's laws regarding handguns are draconian in that they make the process of being able to get a license to own a handgun deliberately complex, bundensome, time consuming, and expensive. I don't want to sidetrack this useful topic, but imagine if a woman wanting to get an abortion needed to get three letters of recommendation or references that would attest why having a child would be a medical, financial and logistical problem for them.

On another note, it turns out that I was incorrect when I previously wrote: "I believe you may also have to provide dates and explanations for any time you took a painkiller or sedative." I had read that somewhere online, but I found a recent version of an NYC handgun application and did not see any question along these lines. Here is a link to it: http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/downloa...msComplete.pdf

[AndyLate]

I find myself wondering if this case was chosen deliberately to avoid a ruling on capacity and feature laws. I agree that NYC's license requirements are ridiculously burdensome and unconstitutional. At the same time, a victory in this case will only benefit the people who live in municipalities with burdensome license requirements.

I want to see a magazine capacity or a "scary features" law thrown out with extreme prejudice.

Of course, I would still love to see NYC's citizens victorious here.

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

SCOTUS has a history of, and Roberts is a huge fan of, taking cases where there are differing views in the Circuits, decisions that are narrow in scope and are 'adjacent' to other settled law. I think the mag ban is just too far out there for them to take, for now. I wish they would- and that is why we need RBG to kick the bucket and make Roberts a full fledged member of the left side of the court. I think that if we were to press the AWB and mag bans now, we would get a decision that would leave a lot to be desired.

[sundance435]

I’m not sure about a limited scope. I’m not sure they would have taken the case then.

With the exception of Obergfell and Obamacare, all the Roberts' Court takes is cases with limited scope, which is probably closer to original intent in the Constitution, anyway. Even Obergfell and the Obamacare case were narrowly tailored legally (particularly Obamacare through "creative" reasoning by Roberts), it just seems like they weren't because of the political ramifications. This ain't the Warren Court that will write abortion into the Constitution as a protected right. Big difference between that and discriminating against an easily identifiable class in relation to a government-created "right" with almost no rational basis. It seems to me that Roberts is hyper-sensitive to the public's perception of the Court, which is alarming.

I find myself wondering if this case was chosen deliberately to avoid a ruling on capacity and feature laws. I agree that NYC's license requirements are ridiculously burdensome and unconstitutional. At the same time, a victory in this case will only benefit the people who live in municipalities with burdensome license requirements.

I would guarantee that is exactly why it was chosen. The law is unconstitutional on its face (for many reasons that don't even implicate the 2nd Amendment) and provides no basis for delving into things like mag capacity and features. It will be an ever-so-slight advancement beyond McDonald.

[tb-av]

I would guarantee that is exactly why it was chosen. The law is unconstitutional on its face (for many reasons that don't even implicate the 2nd Amendment) and provides no basis for delving into things like mag capacity and features. It will be an ever-so-slight advancement beyond McDonald.

I don't live there but would welcome any advance however small, but these days it seems like everything is a crap shoot. I trust half of the SCOTUS to -always- make the wrong call regarding the 2A. The other half is a 50/50 guess. So basically the odds are pretty bad. Honestly I would be stunned and amazed if the SCOTUS every said.... yep,,, the 2A should be handled just the way most right wingers say. There should be no NFA and only the very slightest of regulations overall.

I would more likely expect to see the 2A abolished.