NYSRPA: After Heller NYC Might Be Next

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Dec 19, 2006
Messages
591
Location
New York NY
If gun enthusiasts are victorious this month when the Supreme Court declares what rights exist under the Second Amendment, their next target may be New York City's strict gun control laws.

The federal high court may issue its historic decision on gun rights as early as today, and certainly by no later than month's end.

Obtaining a gun license in New York City is now a lengthy and costly endeavor. In the span of a decade, a New Yorker with a licensed handgun at home will pay more than $1,000 in fees.

Some of the obstacles facing prospective gun owners in the city may change if the Supreme Court rules that individuals have a constitutional right to keep a gun for protection.

"If there is an individual right, then bureaucratic discretion in permitting and registering guns is going to be minimized," a lawyer who financed the case currently before the Supreme Court, Robert Levy, said, adding that "you cannot allow bureaucrats the option of denying people constitutional rights."

The Supreme Court's ruling is highly anticipated because the Supreme Court has said little in its history about whether the Second Amendment protects individual gun ownership or just the right of states to organize militia units.

The Second Amendment case before the nine is a legal challenge to Washington, D.C.'s gun control laws. Washington has a near-complete ban on handguns and requires that shotguns and rifles be disassembled or fixed with a trigger lock when kept at home.

The bent of the questions the justices asked at oral argument in March left little doubt among legal experts that a majority will recognize an individual right to own guns. It's possible that a ruling that strikes down Washington's federal law could have no effect on municipal gun control laws elsewhere. The Second Amendment, the Supreme Court could decide, poses a limit on the gun control enacted by the federal government, but not on a state's power to police guns. But that is a remote possibility, given that the judges have read the equal protection clause to restrict the states from violating rights enshrined in other amendments to the federal constitution.

Mayor Bloomberg has emerged as a foe of the gun industry. In the name of public safety he has pressed lawsuits against firearm manufacturers and sellers across the East Coast. The city's gun control laws have not changed dramatically during his administration.

Mayor Bloomberg's criminal justice coordinator, John Feinblatt, said that the decision from the Supreme Court will "not in any way" force a change to New York's laws.

"If the court finds, as most people predict it will, that the Second Amendment provides an individual right to gun ownership," Mr. Feinblatt said, "that will not have an effect on reasonable regulations."

Still, both sides on the debate over municipal gun control expect the ruling from Washington to set off an unprecedented wave of litigation over gun control nationwide.

"I think the real risk here is not what the court will say," Mr. Feinblatt said. "The risk here is that, after years of criticizing litigation, the gun lobby will get in the litigation business and become litigation-happy."

The lawyer who argued against Washington's ban before the Supreme Court, Alan Gura, said: "I do expect there will be other litigation."

He added: "There are going to be some gun laws that will not survive, and others that do."

Mr. Levy, speaking from his home in Asheville, N.C., said he had no plans to organize a suit challenging New York's laws, as he had done in Washington. Still, Mr. Levy, who is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, said gun control restrictions in New York would make a good target for a lawsuit.

He described New York's gun control laws as being less restrictive than those in Washington or Chicago, "but worse than just about everybody else."

Getting a handgun license in New York is time-consuming and expensive. The general counsel to the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, Patrick Brophy, said that shepherding an application for a gun license often requires four trips to police headquarters and a six-month time wait.

Gun rights proponents interviewed cited two items in New York's gun control laws that would be especially vulnerable to legal challenge depending on the Supreme Court's ruling. One is a requirement that firearms generally be kept inoperable when not being handled. The other is a licensing fee of $340 that New Yorkers must pay every three years in order to keep a handgun at home or at a business.

"Does it constitute an infringement of an individual right guaranteed by the Bill of Rights to charge a citizen $340 every three years for exercising that right?" Mr. Brophy asked, adding that he believed it was an infringement. "You can't tax a right out of existence and call it a user fee," he said.

Mr. Feinblatt said that the licensing fee didn't raise an issue.

"Nobody who pays the fee likes to pay the fee, but there isn't a constitutional right not to have a fee," he said.

ARTICLE

I'm a current resident of NYC if such a lawsuit was possible would all the NYC & NY State firearms owners be willing to support it or sign a petition for reform because I would be the first in line.
 
Last edited:
"Mr. Feinblatt said that the licensing fee didn't raise an issue.

"Nobody who pays the fee likes to pay the fee, but there isn't a constitutional right not to have a fee," he said."

OK Mr Feinblatt. You pay $340 every time you open your mouth. there isn't a constitutional right not to have a fee for freedom of speech is there?
 
"Nobody who pays the fee likes to pay the fee, but there isn't a constitutional right not to have a fee," he said.

:banghead::banghead::banghead: :mad: That is just so stupid... I almost can't believe anybody would say that!
 
I agree with their not being a constitutional right to not have a fee. We should have congress pass a bill that requires people to pay a one dollar fee per word they speak.
 
I agree with their not being a constitutional right to not have a fee. We should have congress pass a bill that requires people to pay a one dollar fee per word they speak.
They don't need to pass a law according to Mr. Feinblatt. The states can just do that already. Congress never passed a law saying the "shall not be infringed" did not include a tax (fee is a tax by another name.) So likewise they never passed a law saying the same about the first amendment, so according to Mr. Feinblatt he should pay an annual fee for his right to open his mouth.
 
We should have congress pass a bill that requires people to pay a one dollar fee per word they speak.
Don't forget the church fees.

As a former resident of NYC, I hope it all works out for them. NYC is a posterchild for everything wrong with "reasonable restriction."
 
Chicago is probably next, because with its outright ban, it's the closest in fact pattern to DC. If Heller goes the right way, Chicago will be a slam dunk. Expect a LOT of not too bright Chicago cops to get sued into poverty unlawfully enforcing overturned Chicago gun laws at Daley's behest.
 
"Mr. Feinblatt said that the licensing fee didn't raise an issue.

"Nobody who pays the fee likes to pay the fee, but there isn't a constitutional right not to have a fee," he said."

Anyone else remember the fate of the Poll Tax that was intended to keep Blacks from voting? I think the precedent has been set on this issue long ago.
 
Chicago is probably next, because with its outright ban, it's the closest in fact pattern to DC. If Heller goes the right way, Chicago will be a slam dunk. Expect a LOT of not too bright Chicago cops to get sued into poverty unlawfully enforcing overturned Chicago gun laws at Daley's behest.



Don't worry, Daley will fight the lawsuits with the citizens of Chicago's taxpayer dollars.
 
way i see it, the sullivan act and the chicago bans will get challenged by the end of the day on monday...

also...

some idiot will challenge the NFA by tuesday...

some other idiot will challenge the felons in possession law by tuesday...

by the end of june, challenges will have been made against the AWBs in NY, CA, Denver and hawaii...

hopefully, we will see some successes with the challenges without too many nut cases coming out of the woodwork...
 
Anyone else remember the fate of the Poll Tax that was intended to keep Blacks from voting?
Yes. It took the twenty-fourth amendment to abolish it:
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

Modern jurisprudence has taken a dim view of governments placing taxes upon basic rights, but the poll tax is a particularly poor example.
 
Mr. Feinblatt said. "The risk here is that, after years of criticizing litigation, the gun lobby will get in the litigation business and become litigation-happy."

Hah, I can only hope that is the outcome. Oh how the tables have turned.....
 
Wow, you guys should all work for NYC!!!

I was thinking along the same lines as the rest of you as I read that article. That is:

1) Church tax
2) Poll taxes (again?)
3) Free speech tax
4) Fee not to incriminate yourself
5) Fee if you don't want a standing army "standing" in your home
6) Fee if you want any kind of reasonable protection against search and seizure.

(and so on).


The scary part is, someone keeps electing the officials who follow this sort of policy-line!
 
I'm a current resident of NYC if such a lawsuit was possible would all the NYC & NY State firearms owners be willing to support it or sign a petition for reform because I would be the first in line.

If you can get "all the NYC & NY State firearms owners" to sign or support anything, the heavens would open and Mayor Bloomberg would ascend to the accompaniment of the New York Philharmonic playing the score of the new Broadway musical Fat Chance.

You know what you have when two gun owners meet? An argument about principles.

You know what you have when three gun owners meet? A third party candidate.

A tax on the exercise of any Constitutional right should be difficult to defend even by New York City. In this case it's obviously discriminatory against the poor.
 
This is a key example of why Heller is so important. IF we win and IF we get a good, solid "strict scrutiny" decision and IF we then get incorporation (which should logically follow), suddenly things like fees and taxes to exercise a Constitutional right start to look a weebit like poll taxes and fees to express one's opinion.

However, there are a lot of Ifs to be decided between next Monday and that point.

Keep your fingers crossed.

Mike
 
brighamr said:
"Mr. Feinblatt said that the licensing fee didn't raise an issue.

"Nobody who pays the fee likes to pay the fee, but there isn't a constitutional right not to have a fee," he said."

OK Mr Feinblatt. You pay $340 every time you open your mouth. there isn't a constitutional right not to have a fee for freedom of speech is there?

It's not as far fetched as you think.

http://law.jrank.org/pages/12734/Minneapolis-Star-v-Minnesota-Commissioner-Revenue.html

Appellant's Claim
That a state special tax assessment on ink and paper used in publication of the Star Tribune newspaper violated freedom of the press.
 
Maybe this is mean spirited, but... I would so love to see Bloomberg's City get stomped on... with all of the grief he has caused gun shops across the eastern US.
 
I may be wrong, but isn't the whole case behind Heller based on the fact that firearms are nearly banned in DC?

Even if the Supreme Court comes down in favor on Heller, it won't be anywhere near the same as ruling that gun control laws are unconstitutional.

$1000 to a NYC resident "over a decade" isn't that big of a deal compared with the other costs of living in NYC. And while it is difficult to own firearms in the city, and getting a CCW is extrememly difficult, it would be impossible to show that there is a ban on all firearms.

I would think a similar lawsuit against NYC would have a much different outcome than what is expected regarding DC.


In regards to a fee for free speech, most towns/cities have fees for parades or large gatherings (like rallies). There are laws regulating how/where people can picket. So, in quite a few cases, I'd say we already have fees for some "free" speech. And there are other regulations, like not being able to yell fire in a crowd. So not being infringed does not equate to non regulated at all.


This article raises an interesting point about other litigation, but from other articles and commentaries that I've seen and heard, this case isn't going to have any earth-shaking effects. As this article said, some laws will be repealed or changed, but alot will remain the same.
 
Even if the Supreme Court comes down in favor on Heller, it won't be anywhere near the same as ruling that gun control laws are unconstitutional.

no but its a foot hold. and a rather significant one. the start of legal arguments against "May Issue" licenses, local city bans, etc
 
Actually, Morton Grove or Wilmette may make a better next choice - they don't have Chicago's deep pockets to fight back.
They might well capitulate, which would ruin any value of the action.
 
Unless you live in Morton Grove or Wilmette. ;)

But yeah, I see your point - but while capitulation doesn't get us any progress on the judicial front, it does set a certain sort of precedent in its own way.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top