Can I Sue the NYC Gov't for 2nd Amendment violation

[Nick_007]

You'll have to forgive my ignorance but how did Heller -- a security guard -- get to sue DC and go to the Supreme court? I must have been sleeping when they went over the Legislative branch in 7th grade. And can I sue NYC?

The gun banners say they have a right to regulate handguns in a muncipality which aren't covered under 2nd amendment protection since there's nothing in the Constitution about self-defence. Fair enough, I guess, but then they only permit rifles that are more or less hunting guns ???? and not guns that can be used as a hedge against a totalitarian gov't.

It's pretty clear in their view (the NYC gov't among others) the 2nd amendment has to do with allowing guns only to be used for hunting, and that's just plain wrong as far as the 2nd amend is concerned.

Not to mention how is it "reasonable" for them to ask me to submit to a 4-6 month rifle permit process; that costs $240 every 3 years for finger prints and admin costs; procure a birth certificate; not to mention get notarized letters etc.

 

[winston smith]

Sure you can sue -- you just can't afford the lawyers or appeals. Heller was over $5 million.

The NRA (the only ones with enough money) needs to fund a step-by-step process, and NYC is not on their priority list.

No crooked NY judge will support the argument that your guns should be allowed to protect you from HIM. The Sullivan act was done by a crooked pol to protect his hired bullies from the taxpayer-victims.

Nothing much has changed in NY.

The Heller decision will slowly perculate through the country, but NY and other cities will be the last places to be liberated.

 

[everallm]

Currently Heller only applies directly to DC (as a federal enclave with limited direct rule) and only on the outright banning of a whole class of firearms "in common usage". It does not apply against the individual states, it does not lay out what "reasonable regulation" is, it does not define what standard of review, rational, strict etc applies.

As and when 2A, through the current Nordyke and Chicago hand gun cases, has been bounced back up to the Supreme Court and rulings on incorporation and standard of review have passed, THEN you might be able to get standing to challenge the Sullivan Act in NYC.

 

[gbw]

I'm not a lawyer, perhaps one will chime in. Till then....

To sustain your suit through the system, you must first directly suffer something called an 'article III injury', which means the law you are suing to overturn must have caused you some direct harm. The easiest example is to be arrested, but there are many other types of injury. Heller, for example was denied a pistol permit. This got him by, but it was very close. There were others on the original case who didn't actually own guns and/or apply for permits, whose cases were thrown out at lower levels for lack of standing, leaving only Heller. They also sued in the supreme court to be reinstated, I never heard what became of their claim. (BTW, the Heller case was fashioned from the gitgo only to be a 2A Supreme Court case. And they still barely got there, and then won by a single vote).

Many many cases are thrown out for lack of 'article III standing', which means the court didn't find that you were adequately harmed, so you do not have standing to sue. Simply being inconvenienced, no matter how much, by obeying a law is not good enough. This appears to be very much up to the judge. If they do not want to rule on the case it's also the easiest way for them to dodge it. From my reading there may be many judges who agree that the second amendment grants an individual right, but they hate it. So they use any excuse they can, including lack of standing, to rule. The Brady bunch always include an attack on standing to get 2A suits dismissed.

BTW, Heller actually does grant nearly everyone the right to a handgun. The only problem for the moment (well, actually the first problem of several) is that the Heller decision is not yet 'incorporated' into the bill of rights, meaning as I get it that it applies directly only to Washington D.C. residents for now. It may or may not be incorporated as we go along. It's the next big important step. The other big step is that too many judges will find ways to ignore Heller, using very twisted their logic, and nothing can be done about that. The SC only hears about 1% of the cases filed for review.

 

[Nick_007]

Heller was worth 5M yet worked as a security guard?

 

[hnk45acp]

No the case cost 5million
I'm in NYC too and you can sue, but it needs to be something along the lines of being arbitrarily denied your permit and say you get robbed at home. You could sue the city for arbitrarily denying you your permit and having suffered as a result

 

[JImbothefiveth]

The gun banners say they have a right to regulate handguns in a muncipality which aren't covered under 2nd amendment protection since there's nothing in the Constitution about self-defence.

Actually, I thought the supreme court said that you can't deny people the right to own self-defense firearms.

 

[230RN]

I've often wondered how much of the preceding Parker Case Decision remains valid after Heller. Seems to me there was an awful lot of language in the Parker Decision which was right in line with the general RKBA viewpoint --and much of it relevant to checking a suppressive government.

It's been a long time since I read Parker, and I'm not a lawyer (obviously), but didn't a lot of language in the Parker Decsion also tend to favor the idea that the Second Amendment was inherently incorporated?

Seems to me that since Parker was favorable to RKBA, those parts of it that the Supreme Court didn't invalidate would still be valid, no? And the Heller case was based on only a very limited aspect of Parker.

Just a dumb question from dumb little old me, and maybe I was reading too much into the Parker decision... again, I am not a lawyer.

Terry, 230RN

 

[t165]

Sorry for the double post. Don't know how I done it but if can be screwed up I'll find a way to do it.

 

[t165]

Anti-gun politicians will always find excuses, fees/taxes, to limit firearm ownership/use. Noise, environmental pollution, toxic poisoning of animals and man, whatever they can dream up. The truth is either they simply do not like guns or preaching gun control support is simply used as a political ladder in areas which support gun control/elimination.

Lawyers fall into this catagory too. If I was to seek a lawyer to represent me I would find one who goes to the gun range and I know supports the 2nd. In the end questions of law wind up in front of a judge. Hopefully my 2nd amendment supporting lawyer would be smart enough to file in a 2nd amendment court presided over by a friendly judge. This is exactly what the anti-gun crowd does. Shopping for a friendly judge is routine and one very good reason why the courts are so crowded. some larger judicial areas may have revolving judge pools but the rural areas I come from do not, so picking the judge is fairly easy.

Politics also plays a role in the appeals process also. Conflicting appeals decisions are common enough at any time on a range of topics. The US Supreme Court is the end game but in my humble opinion the narrow scope of their decisions often do nothing but answer the question to a skirmish within a much bigger war. Like Heller!

Lawyers are divided as to what they think Heller answers. That is the nature of lawyers. They are no different than you or I. They have their individual opinions and everytime (2) lawyers walk into an adverserial court proceeding one of their arguments will be found lacking or wrong. Then, if the appeal process is initiated the losing lawyer may very well be told he was right all along. Appeals judges have opinions too! Heller was a 4-5 decision so basically legislated laws have little meaning in the greater scheme of things. The courts, most notibly, the US Supreme Court has the final say through case law.

The courts are a quagmire and you need deep pockets to play at the elevated levels. The courts, like politics, are subject to the same corrupting influences, in my humble opinion. The nominating process for federal judges is nothing but political. In my neck of the woods local judges run for office and the Democrats hold all (3) county positions.

If I am correct Heller 1 basically established a US citizens right to pocess a firearm (handgun?) in ones home and that firearm ownership was a constitutional right? There is suppose to be 4-5 other cases brought by Heller working their way through the courts. I guess we'll have to wait and see if the Supreme Court thinks they have enough merit to be called up. I started to bone-up on Heller a few weeks back but the legal authorities are already disagreeing on what the decision really means so I thought I would let the experts argue for a while and then read up on the popular consensus.



I was of the opinion Heller, while originating in DC, applied to all Americans and not just DC residents. When dealing with constitutional rights I have always thought decisions handed down by the high court were blanket decisions applicable to all americans. But then again, I have been wrong before.

 

[cbrgator]

Here is the issue thus far... Incorporation. The 2A has not yet been incorporated against the states, so technically, at this point, NYC is not infringing on your right because it is not yet your right. There are 2 cases underway to solve this very issue. Nick 007, NYC is a target on the list, but not an immediate one. There is a joint effort by the NRA and CATO Institute to bring down these bans, but the legal process is a slow process. Be patient, and your time will come.

 

[Dr. Fresh]

I've often wondered how much of the preceding Parker Case Decision remains valid after Heller.

I'm curious about this as well.

 

[cbrgator]

Somebody please correct me if I am wrong, but I'm almost positive the Parker case IS DC v. Heller. The name changed.

 

[P.O.2010]

There are two problems with suing New York City for violating your right to keep and bear arms.

First, as has been mentioned, is the issue of incorporation. Until the Second Amendment is held to apply to the states via the 14th Amendment your lawsuit will go nowhere at the federal level. New York is a state which has no RKBA provision in its constitution although the NYS Civil Rights law does protect a right to keep and bear arms.

The second problem is the fact that unless the SCOTUS rules that it is unconstitutional to require a license or permit in order to purchase and possess firearms New York's laws are unlikely to change. NYS and NYC have provisions in place for the issuance of a pistol license (and in NYC a rifle/shotgun permit). Thus there is no absolute prohibition and it is theoretically possible to obtain permission to own a handgun. Extremely expensive, time consuming, difficult and degrading...but possible. SCOTUS is not going to sit down and rewrite the NYC pistol licensing bureau's handbook.

The only way to change NYS and NYC's laws is to have the 2nd Amendment incorporated and then obtain a ruling stating that no prior government permission is required to obtain a firearm for possession in the home.

 

[Rmeju]

P.O.

The SCOTUS may or may not see the constitutional validity of a license, but I have the strong feeling that what won't fly will be fees, long waits, and misc. administrative barriers (i.e. extremely limited & inconvenient office hours , etc).

Right now, permits are used as an obsticle. If that is something they cannot be, and the states/cities can't even charge money for them, they're very likely to go away.

This is all, of course, JMHO.

Rmeju

 

[230RN]

I said (Post 8):

I've often wondered how much of the preceding Parker Case Decision remains valid after Heller. Seems to me there was an awful lot of language in the Parker Decision which was right in line with the general RKBA viewpoint --and much of it relevant to checking a suppressive government.

cbrgator

Somebody please correct me if I am wrong, but I'm almost positive the Parker case IS DC v. Heller. The name changed.

My understanding is that they wre two separate cases, one growing out of the other, with Heller narrowly circumscribed to one question, but I, too, could be wrong.

Nevertheless and regardless, it seems to me that if the Supreme Court did not specifically reject much of the favorable-to-RKBA language of Parker, then much of it still stands as a lower Court Decision.

Yes?

No?

Both 230RN and Dr. Fresh would like to know.

And there was a lot of good stuff in the Parker Decision, although it's been a long time since I read it.

Terry, 230RN

 

[MAKster]

Heller was hand picked by Robert Levy of the Cato Institute. Levy paid all the legal expenses and last I heard was sueing D.C. for reimbursement of legal fees.

 

[230RN]

^ But that was after the Parker case, in which he also hand-picked the plaintiffs.

When DC decided to appeal, the only one left with standing for the narrower question was Heller. That's the way I undertand it, but I'm willing to be corrected.

Brilliant man, that.

We owe him so much. (And the other attorneys involved.)

And I believe the NRA and other organizations got reimbursed for some $X00,000 for their costs. I'm not sure if Levy got anything out of that or not. He started out refusing financial help from anyone... I think the "X" above was an "8."

I still want to know how much of Parker is still valid after Heller.

Terry, 230RN

 

[Blackbeard]

It seems that the best course for you would be to go through the process to get your permit, and document all of your costs and time spent on the process. If you're denied, you sue on the grounds that you've been denied the right to bear arms. If you get the permit, you sue to recover the cost of the permit, arguing that it is 'unreasonable' regulation. That's a little weaker case but I'd love to see NYC spend $20 million to avoid paying you $500.

 

[cbrgator]

Is Heller an appeal of Parker? I believe it is, but again not positive. If so, then the SCOTUS decision is all that matters except for any part of Parker the majority in Heller cites to.

 

[winston smith]

Back to the OP: Nothing was said about pistol permits, but if you are denied, and you will be, the legal fees were (back a few years) about $1,000 to sue and get the permit.
Never heard of anyone with enough money for a lawyer being denied.

 

[gbw]

The original case was Parker et al. (Heller was one of the et al.) v. DC.

The district judge(?) upheld DC laws that denied Parker, Heller, and the others a license to keep a pistol in his home in DC. His opinion re-stated the collective rights interpretation of the 2a.

I cannot recall if Parker and the others were dismissed at the local or appeals level. Doesn't matter much, they were dismissed. I think it was at the appeals level. I don't believe DC even bothered with a standing claim since they knew they would be upheld at the local level.

Heller was the only one left after the others were dismissed for lack of standing. The others appealed their dismissal to the SCOTUS. I don't know the outcome of that case.

Meantime, Heller was left with standing, he appealed the local decision.

The DC Circuit court of appeals reversed, saying that the 2a does in fact protect an individual right, and that the DC laws violated his 2a rights. Read it. It's a beautiful piece of work.

DC appealed this to SCOTUS. Heller lawyers didn't agree with the 'question presented' as DC stated it. So they counter-appealed to SCOTUS with their own 'question presented'. Fairly unusal for both sides to ask for certioari, but they did in this case.

SCOTUS accepted the case, but re-framed the question yet again, and this is the question on which they ruled. IIRC, mainly it asked if Heller does have an invididual right to have a pistol in his home, assembled and ready for use, even though he was not a member of the national guard or militia.

SCOTUS upheld the appeals court decision, 5-4. THere were 2 dissenting opinions written, Scalia wrote the majority opinion.

I believe that's pretty much how it unfolded.

 

[Leanwolf]

New York City is not part of the United States of America.

Sue it in The World Court.

L.W.

 

[Dr. Fresh]

SCOTUS upheld the appeals court decision, 5-4. THere were 2 dissenting opinions written, Scalia wrote the majority opinion.

OK, this is the part I don't get. They upheld the previous decision. Does that mean the previous decision holds the weight of law? Is it 2A precedent?

 

[yokel]

I've often wondered how much of the preceding Parker Case Decision remains valid after Heller. Seems to me there was an awful lot of language in the Parker Decision which was right in line with the general RKBA viewpoint --and much of it relevant to checking a suppressive government.

Justice Scalia does cite some interesting literature from the mid-19th century in the Heller opinion such as John Norton Pomeroy's 1868 book An Introduction to the Constitutional Law of the United States, which stated that the Second Amendment would make no sense unless it enables citizens "to exercise themselves in the use of warlike weapons. To preserve this privilege, and to secure to the people the ability to oppose themselves in military force against the usurpations of government, as well as against enemies from without, that government is forbidden by any law or proceeding to invade or destroy the right to keep and bear arms...." [emphasis added].