Gun Rights of New Yorkers May Rest on Case of Hot Dog Vendor

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Dec 19, 2006
Messages
591
Location
New York NY
If New York's strict antigun laws are overturned in the near future, it may be the work of a hot dog vendor.

The vendor, Daniel Vargas, is due next month in court to fight misdemeanor charges that he kept an unlicensed revolver loaded on a basement shelf in his apartment. The case, which has generated 23 hearings and been heard by no fewer than 10 different judges as it winds through Brooklyn's lowest criminal court, would be of little general interest, except for the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled that the Second Amendment protects a right to keep a handgun at home for self-defense.

Now, suddenly, Mr. Vargas's case, as well as a handful of other cases, are testing the authority of district attorneys to prosecute people for gun possession, a strategy that Mayor Bloomberg has emphasized in his criminal justice policies.

In about half a dozen New York City cases reviewed by The New York Sun, defense lawyers have filed briefs arguing that the Supreme Court's decision requires the dismissal of gun possession charges against their clients.

The briefs question the constitutionality of the city's treatment of all unlicensed guns as illegal guns — mere possession of which can be punished by up to 15 years in prison.

At least two of the cases involve gun arrests during traffic stops. The motions ask New York courts to expand the federal Supreme Court decision to find that the "right to bear arms is not limited to the physical confines of the home," as a Brooklyn lawyer, Andrew Miller, wrote in one such case.

One state judge, Michael Gary in Brooklyn, has already rejected the Second Amendment claims of one defendant since the Supreme Court decision. The case involved a man accused of possessing a gun while smoking outside a Chinese restaurant.

But other cases featuring Second Amendment claims involve, like Mr. Vargas's case, allegations of gun possession in the home. In the Bronx, a lawyer for a man named Jose Rivera, who was arrested after police allegedly found marijuana and a .40-caliber pistol in his home, is claiming that he can't be prosecuted for the firearm under the Second Amendment.

In Brooklyn, a lawyer for a woman named Claudett Monplaisir is saying the Second Amendment protects her from prosecution for gun possession after police found a handgun in her apartment which may have been linked to a nearby shooting. Police say the suspected shooter, who fathered a child with Ms. Monplaisir, had instructed her to hide the gun in her freezer, according to court documents.

What makes Mr. Vargas's case so singular is that the only issue is the alleged gun. He is not accused of using the gun improperly or of committing any illegal conduct unrelated to its possession. Nor did police find the alleged gun while investigating other crimes, as often happens. For instance, many unlicensed handguns are recovered from homes in the course of responding to domestic violence calls, defense lawyers say.

Police records indicate that the officer who arrested Mr. Vargas in October 2006 had received "a tip for a location with firearm." According to the police records, Mr. Vargas consented to the search and police found a loaded .38-caliber revolver in a holster sitting on a shelf, with a box of bullets nearby.

Under New York law, possession of an unregistered gun on the streets in New York City carries a maximum penalty of up to 15 years in prison, while possession of such a gun at home is treated as a misdemeanor, which rarely carries jail time for a first offense.

Mr. Vargas's legal aid attorney, Laura Guthrie, wrote in a brief that Mr. Vargas denies possessing any gun or ammunition. The court brief goes on to say that even assuming the allegations are taken as true, the prosecution, "violates the individual right to bear arms protected by the Second Amendment."

"Here the government does not allege that Mr. Vargas possessed the weapon with intent to use it unlawfully, or outside of his home," she wrote. "Mr. Vargas is accused of keeping a gun in his home. This conduct is protected by the individual right to bear arms enshrined in the Second Amendment." The brief, filed last year, cites the appellate court ruling that the U.S. Supreme
Court affirmed in the June decision.

A prosecutor from the Brooklyn district attorney's office, David Morisset, had argued, before the Supreme Court ruling was issued, that the Second Amendment didn't protect an individual right to keep a gun unless the owner was a part of a militia.

In a decision last year rejecting Mr. Vargas's Second Amendment claims, a city judge, Alexander Jeong, focused on another point, which is that Mr. Vargas had never sought a gun license.

But that reason for dismissing Mr. Vargas's Second Amendment claim may have been weakened somewhat since the Supreme Court recognized an individual right to keep a gun at home.

"The question now becomes which defendants with guns in their homes should benefit from that Constitutional right," a criminal defense lawyer and former president of the city bar, Barry Kamins, said. "One issue becomes whether to allow defendants to make these types of challenges even though they never applied for the permit."

Ms. Guthrie has argued that it should not matter whether Mr. Vargas applied for a permit.

"Mr. Vargas is alleged, in essence, not to have submitted himself to the complete discretion and the extraordinary power of the New York City Police Commissioner," she wrote. "The Second Amendment does not permit such interference."

New York's permitting system itself could come under scrutiny as these issues in criminal cases are litigated.

Mayor Bloomberg and other city officials have said that the Supreme Court decision does not threaten New York City's regulations, which require that all gun owners go through a lengthy and costly licensing process. Yet, some gun rights proponents and defense lawyers say that New York's licensing system is so burdensome as to be unconstitutional.

"An average poor guy who's particularly vulnerable to burglary or break-ins is going to have a hard time getting a license," said a legal aid attorney, Steven Wasserman, who wrote the Second Amendment motion that many legal aid attorneys are now using.

It can require multiple trips to One Police Plaza, a wait of more than four months, and fees that can reach more than $1,000 over a decade. Some criminal defense lawyers also say that the requirement that applicants possess "good moral character" is too arbitrary.

Mr. Vargas moved last month from the address on Lincoln Avenue where he was arrested, neighbors said. He could not be reached for comment. An immigrant from the Dominican Republic who is in his early 40s, Mr. Vargas "was a very nice man whenever I saw him," an upstairs neighbor, Beatrez Leger, said, adding that she recalled the arrest in 2006.

"I know he was very upset about it," she said.

Another neighbor, who declined to give his name, said that Mr. Vargas usually sells hot dogs at the corner of Liberty and Sheridan Avenues, although he was not there yesterday. A Daniel Vargas was, until 2004, registered as a street vendor with the Department of Health.

Ms. Guthrie declined to comment on the case, explaining that "any press isn't helpful" for Mr. Vargas.

Gun Rights of New Yorkers May Rest on Case of Hot Dog Vendor
 
Very insightful.

The fact that some states and expecially some cities requiring burdensome licencing haven't been brought to heel by the Heller decision is a sore point with me.

If a man or woman can pass the 4473 and instant check they should be allowed to have a pistol, rifle, or shotgun (heck, even all three at once or more than that) in the home. Requiring financially challenged (poor) people to choose between paying bills or having a means to protect themselves just plain wrong.

I've noticed that the people who usually come up with these laws spend more on Starbucks coffee than most Americans spend on groceries in a month and could easily afford the licencing fees. Does being poor mean your limited to which Constitutional rights you can excersie?
 
Mr.Vargas' case does look like an ideal scenario to challenge gun registration, or to at least challenge the criminalization of NOT registering. The courts may rule registration is constitutional, but may make the penalty for failing to do it a minor civil infraction or something, as opposed to making it a crime that would get the persons gun confiscated, and then likely give him a criminal record that would prevent getting another gun for home defense, thus denying the constitutional right to keep a gun in the home for SD.

I dont really see them making registration illegal, but using the failure to register as a way of essentially permanantly stripping one of the right to keep arms is likely to get overturned.

this is definitely one to keep an eye on.
 
The thing about NYC gun laws is that the registration, "good moral character", etc. may have made some sort of vague sense when there were no background checks, but as there is a federal background check, the idea that you have to submit to a second and more costly one is rather stupid. And since you are already tied to your gun's serial number, registration is rather redundant too.
 
Its all meaningless unless somewhere along the line a court that matters says the 2A applies to NYC.
 
i just put in my application for a residence license in nyc. it was a pain in the neck to get all the documentation together, and the application fees came to $435. now i have to wait 2-3 months for my interview, and then another 2-3 months for approval/disapproval. what a crock. i'm lucky enough to be able to afford the fees, but the people who can't are indeed probably the ones who need guns the most.

i've been lurking here for a while, but i thought i would chime in on this. new york city is never going to allow people to have unregistered guns in their homes, no matter what the supreme court decides. in fact, the police commissioner released a statement saying that the heller decision doesn't affect us because everyone is already allowed to keep a handgun in the home; you just have to pay through the nose and wait 4-6 months for the license is all. it would be nice if they cut down on the wait time, but i wouldn't hold my breath. i just wanted to get my license before obama becomes president and heller gets overturned.
 
Here in Illinois we only have to wait 2-6 weeks to get a FOID card, which is shall issue. It only costs $10 for ten years. Even though you have to have a FOID card to purchase a handgun, you also have to wait 3 days to take possession of it after you buy it. This is after the 2 to 6 week wait to get your FOID card.

It has actually gotten somewhat better here. Used to be $5 for five years, and often took several months to get, especially during hunting season.
 
He is going to lose. The SC stated tthat "reasonable restriction" was not out of the question in Heller and the fact that he never attempted to legally apply for a permit makes his case a loser
 
This nonsense goes back a long, long way. From The Thin Man (1934):

---
Lt. Guild: [finds pistol in dresser] You got a pistol permit?

Nick Charles: No.

Guild: Ever heard of the Sullivan Act?

Nora Charles: Oh, that's all right, we're married.
 
New York's permitting system itself could come under scrutiny as these issues in criminal cases are litigated.

And it should... I don't recall the 2A saying anything about licensing requirements.

Great article... I truly feel bad for the injustices that some States' residents have to endure. I hope Bloomberg and his weasel mafia (and the rest of the socialist scum bags in NY) get their asses handed to them soon.
 
"Mr. Vargas is alleged, in essence, not to have submitted himself to the complete discretion and the extraordinary power of the New York City Police Commissioner," she wrote. "The Second Amendment does not permit such interference."
Are we trying to define "shall not be infringed? ;)
this is definitely one to keep an eye on.
You betcha! :D

Things just get intrestinger and intrestinger! :evil:

Gotta love it!

Poper
 
He is going to lose. The SC stated tthat "reasonable restriction" was not out of the question in Heller and the fact that he never attempted to legally apply for a permit makes his case a loser

As someone said ealier, it depends on your definition of "reasonable". If you think waiting something like 6 months and $435 + yearly renewals is reasonable then..........
 
I'm betting that the high fees and wait will go away if he wins, but that registration will remain, albeit at a lower cost.

I understand why some people want registration, "to keep track of the guns", but since 4473s contain your name and the pistol you bought (which has a serial number), isn't registering with NYPD redundant? I think if someone would simply make this fact public, all this nonsense of permits to buy and registration would go away.
 
With a challenge to the licensing and registration requirements perhaps a victory will define "permissible" as registration akin to voter registration. Free and quick but still an infringement IMHO but superior to any other system out there. Maybe get lucky and let one register online, you never know courts can get crazy.
 
Registration (at a "reasonable" cost) is one thing. That says, essentially, "You can have whatever you want ... just tell us what ya got."

A "license," on the other hand, is requiring people to ask prior permission before "allowing" them to exercise what is supposed to be an unalienable right.

Different animals.
 
Registration (at a "reasonable" cost) is one thing. That says, essentially, "You can have whatever you want ... just tell us what ya got."

A "license," on the other hand, is requiring people to ask prior permission before "allowing" them to exercise what is supposed to be an unalienable right.

Different animals.

You may see the difference, I do not. If you do not register then they take your gun. If you do not get a license (or a license is refused) you don't get a gun in the first place. Either way you are asking the government's permission to own that firearm, permission denied and you don't have a gun.

Registration is a "permit" since you must have it registered to have permission to own it. This is especially true of one must have the firearm registered prior to taking possession. Whether it's called a license, permit, or register the outcome is the same.

I grow tired of legislators taking "artistic license" with the Constitution, licensing a right is infringement.
 
One state judge, Michael Gary in Brooklyn, has already rejected the Second Amendment claims of one defendant since the Supreme Court decision. The case involved a man accused of possessing a gun while smoking outside a Chinese restaurant.

Smoking AND a gun. :what: This guy is screwed. :p
 
As someone said ealier, it depends on your definition of "reasonable". If you think waiting something like 6 months and $435 + yearly renewals is reasonable then..........
read the rest of my sentence. I never claimed that waiting 10 months and paying $435 was "reasonable". Sh*t I just paid almost $900 to renew all my permits! He is going to lose because he never tried to register it. It's the same reason Dick Heller was the only person left to fight the SC case. He was the only one to actually tried to register his gun in DC. You can own a gun in NYC, you just have to jump thru the hoops, this guy didn't he is screwed
 
being granted a license from some government agent means whatever you are applying for is a privilege; i.e. driving. Exercising a fundamental right does not require a politician's permission plain and simple. I think politicans are quite aware that criminals will NOT register their guns. So what's the purpose of registration then? Its to inconvenience and control law abiding citizens. The politicans want total control over the population and that cannot be done without disarming them first. Look up the Sullivan Act, who was involved and why it was passed.

http://www.gunlawnews.org/sullivan.html

According to politicans and judges, our rights are subject to reasonable restrictions. However these reasonable restrictions usually begin when my rights interfere with your rights. They love to use yelling fire in a crowded theater as an example of limitations on first amendment rights. Well if we are going to use an equivalent analogy for the second amendment, that would be a limitation on taking target practice in a crowded theater or waving a firearm around without just cause. Would it be proper for the government require you pay a fee and get a license for you to attend a theater, or have a party in your house or before you attend services at a mosque? There would be riots in the streets if they ever tried this. This is a very important case...the NRA should get involved because they have the resources and the funds to help take this to SCOTUS. (It will also help show their critics that they care about other things than just raising their membership and soliciting for donations.) Vargas is being defended by Legal Aid. Part of the reason why cities get away with this kind of nonsense is because the people they prosecute are usually the poor and less educated...people that can't see their case through the biased NYC judiciary. The Chicago case headed by Alan Gura does not take on the constitutionality of registration directly - which should have been done from the begining. Even if they win, they are reinforcing the publics perception that registration of a right is constitutional. This man is being prosecuted because he did not ask the police commissioner's permission to exercise his rights. If cities get away with this, then I truly worry about the direction of this country. What's next, require registration of muslims because they might be terrorists? Some of you may scoff but this country has been in existence for 200+ years and look at how much freedom has already been erased. Do you really think the politicans are ever going to stop?::mad:
 
"You can have whatever you want ... just tell us what ya got."
This was actually required by the Founding Fathers via the Milita Act of 1792. They just wanted to know who they could call on, and what that person would likely show up with - a matter of facilitation, not prohibition.
 
The SC stated tthat "reasonable restriction" was not out of the question
Not quite. The SC stated that "reasonable restrictions" were not at issue because DC's restrictions would obviously fail to pass ANY level of scrutiny. The "reasonable restrictions" discussed were broad sweeping characterizations of what conceivably could be debated as such, and illustrated that DC's prohibitions couldn't even come close to those.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top