Brooklyn man arrested for possesion of firearms in his home. Defense being used is the 2A. Will this be another case for SCOTUS?
http://www.gothamgazette.com/article/law/20071116/13/2348
http://www.gothamgazette.com/article/law/20071116/13/2348
No one, the judge reasoned, intended for every individual to "own firearms for their private, civilian use."
Going beyond the legal history, the New York judge used the decision to present statistics about the "nationwide proliferation of deaths and injuries caused by privately owned guns." Since the 2007 decision in Parker, Washington, D.C. has experienced 750 armed robberies, 520 armed assaults and 111 homicides, according to sources cited by Gerstein in his decision.
We find the reasoning of Parker to be deeply flawed, such that even if its holding were to be deemed applicable to our statute, which it is not, we would decline to follow it...
While the Legal Aid Society says that no decision has been made about appealing the Handsome decision, any reversal on appeal is generally viewed as extremely unlikely, and therefore unlikely to be pursued.
The caselaw in New York state is so FUBAR that a trial court judge can dismiss the opinion of the Federal Circuit over a clear constitutional question, and this poor guys lawyers don't think a reversal on appeal is likely.
It was so held by this court in the case of U. S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 , 553, in which the chief justice, in delivering the judgment of the court, said that the right of the people to keep and bear arms 'is not a right granted by the constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes to what is called in City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. [116 U.S. 252, 102] 139, the 'powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was perhaps more properly called internal police,' 'not surrendered or restrained' by the constitution of the United States.' See, also, Barron v. Baltimore, 7 Pet. 243; Fox v. State, 5 How. 410; Twitchell v. Com., 7 Wall. 321, 327; Jackson v. Wood, 2 Cow. 819;Com. v. Purchase, 2 Pick. 521; U. S. v. Cruikshank, 1 Woods, 308; North Carolina v. Newsom, 5 Ired. 250; Andrews v. State, 3 Heisk. 165; Fife v. State, 31 Ark. 455.
What kind of judge reads "the right of the people" and interprets it to mean "the right of the State" ??Judge Michael Gerstein... found that "the right to bear arms" did not mean that individuals had such a right.
To Gerstein, this means state militias (or in modern times the National Guard) have the right to possess weapons. No one, the judge reasoned, intended for every individual to "own firearms for their private, civilian use."
A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed.
Going beyond the legal history, the New York judge used the decision to present statistics about the "nationwide proliferation of deaths and injuries caused by privately owned guns." Since the 2007 decision in Parker, Washington, D.C. has experienced 750 armed robberies, 520 armed assaults and 111 homicides, according to sources cited by Gerstein in his decision.
The Parker ruling has been stayed pending Washington D.C.'s appeal with the United States Supreme Court... which means that this gun-crime-a-day thing has been happening with the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 in FULL EFFECT!
That means that there has been a homicide every other day, two armed assaults every day, and three armed robberies every day.
However, Section 4 of the New York Civil Rights Law states: A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed.
Parker is "founded on a revisionist view of the Constitutional Convention, which view is far from generally accepted," said Gerstein.
To Gerstein, this means state militias (or in modern times the National Guard) have the right to possess weapons. No one, the judge reasoned, intended for every individual to "own firearms for their private, civilian use."