Replicating DC v. Heller in NYC?

[Foofles]

I've been thinking lately... NYC's restrictions aren't too much different than those that got shot down in Heller. Especially eg. forcing all weapons to be locked/rendered inoperable and separated from ammunition when not "in your immediate control".

If a case were brought against NYC in the supreme court for these things, couldn't references to Heller provide a massive advantage? How might this be approached and would it be worth the effort?

Thanks for reading and appreciate any input.

Edited to add - I guess I could start with contacting New York State Rifle and Pistol Association ... apparently according to : http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aYY3yDLLiMQg&refer=us

Jacob Rieper, an official with the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, said his group may use the high court's decision to challenge the power of New York police to reject an applicant for any reason.

Also:

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg told reporters the ruling leaves room for ``reasonable regulation'' to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. He said ``all of the laws on the books in New York State and New York City'' would pass that test.

I don't believe you Bloomy.

 

[Wilson2]

I agree. The problem is that most challenges to laws require deep pockets for the legal expenses. Usually, you have one of two situations:

1. Somebody has been arrested and is challenging a law as part of their defense during their trial; or

2. A large organization with financial backing, such as the NRA, brings forth a legal challenge to a law.

Both will generate huge legal expenses. You would need to solicit financial help, convince some large well funded organization to back you, or get a grassroots movement started to come up with adequate funding to move forward with a lawsuit to challenge NY law(s).

Speculation on my part -- I imagine the NRA and others examine laws and situations including current judges in relevant courts and wait for what they feel are the most favorable circumstances to challenge unfair laws.

 

[Foofles]

I would figure they would, and that's true that it requires deep pockets... something I don't have on my own for sure.

 

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

You betcha - but AFTER we win McDonald vs. City of Chicago. Can't do city/state regs until we win that fundamental issue. One step at a time!

 

[Foofles]

True, and if anything after that gets knocked out NYC won't have a leg to stand on with the issue.

Can't blame me for caring about my home

 

[Al Norris]

After McDonald; After Nordyke; After Sykes; After Peǹa; After Palmer ... Then NYC.

It should be noted that Alan Gura is attorney of record in all the above cases, except Nordyke... And he filed an amicus brief for the SAF in that case.

 

[Cosmoline]

If the Sullivan Act gets overturned I'm going to have a big celebration. It's one of the oldest and worst of the anti-gun laws, going back to 1911.

 

[Yellowfin]

NYC will be next immediately after Chicago in the McDonald case. They won't wait a day, trust me. Sykes will be ruled on first because it's already ahead in line, so by the time Good Guy v. NYC comes around we'll have that precedent. If Palmer runs quickly enough that will be a one two knockout punch. SAF and Calguns Foundation are spearheading this campaign. And Mr. Gura is going to have an entire chapter in the books on Constitutional law and civil rights litigation.

 

[paramedic70002]

If we win Chicago, NY will probably go with it. Once the SCOTUS rules on one state/city's laws, it's applicable to all, right? Like abortion, Miranda, etc.

OTOH I read on another forum someone saying that the SCOTUS rulings are unenforceable; only an opinion, and there is no enforcement statute that forces their opinion to be followed. That particular thought seems way out there, but no one could refute the statement.

 

[cloudedice]

OTOH I read on another forum someone saying that the SCOTUS rulings are unenforceable; only an opinion, and there is no enforcement statute that forces their opinion to be followed. That particular thought seems way out there, but no one could refute the statement.

Once the Supreme Court rules a law is unconstitutional, the law becomes unenforceable.

 

[everallm]

Before folks rush off the day after McDonald and start OC'ng in NYC.........

Assume that the case goes wondefully well and the SC rules that 2A is incorporated and under Strict Scrutiny (we live in hope).

Guess what, all the laws are still on the book.

Depending upon what the SC defines as reasonable regulation, some or many of those laws will remain in a position that means you can still be arrested if you break them.

You may end up being acquited but it could be a very uncomfortable time between arrest, charge and hearing.

So in NYC, the day after, the Sullivan Laws may well be unconstitutional but untill they are either challenged or repealed they still stay in effect.....Can anyone say Jim Crow.......

What we also don't want is a body of bad case law building up, we want clean, defensible, "good" cases to BEGIN the tear down.

 

[tube_ee]

DO NOT run out and file a challenge to the Sullivan Laws.

Mr Gura, the SAF, CGF, and the rest of the usual suspects have a plan. They won't disclose it, and rightly so, for fear of tipping off the enemy, but there is one, and I'm absolutely certain that New York is on the list. Given the longevity of the laws, plus New York's outsized influence in matters financial, corporate, and media, I'd expect that New Yorkers are going to have to wait until an overwhelming body of precedent is built up...

But then, there was a reason that the NAACP didn't file it's first case in Mississippi.

Things are running our way, and the guys driving the train are the best we've ever had. Don't get in their way. It's tough for us to accept "trust us", given how many times we've been sold out, and how many battles we've lost. But for the first time in living memory, we've got the wind at our backs and the road ahead trends downhill.

Good things are coming. Discipline yourselves to wait for them.

--Shannon

 

[Phatty]

Guess what, all the laws are still on the book.

Yep. After Heller all of the federal firearm laws theoretically were at risk of being held unconstitutional. Yet, since Heller not a single federal firearm law has been invalidated. Zero. None. And it's not because criminal defendants haven't been trying.

If McDonald goes perfectly for us, the result will be that a Chicago law is invalidated. That's it. No new ground regarding the scope of the 2A right will be broken in McDonald. The same ban on possession of handguns in the home is at issue in McDonald as it was in Heller. The idea behind filing the McDonald case was to advance one step -- incorporating the 2A. Subsequent cases will tackle additional steps.

 

[Al Norris]

That's precisely why I mentioned the other cases as "first."

Such a body of (case) law must be built up first.

If things go our way in McDonald (and many liberals are being brought on board), and the P&I clause is reinvigorated, Palmer will give some teeth to many other parts of our Liberties.

Just to be clear, there's a reason Gura linked the Right to Travel with the Right to Carry in Palmer.