SAF Sues in New York to Void 'Good Cause' Carry Permit Requirement

[Dominus]

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele...-cause-carry-permit-requirement-98536679.html
http://www.gunrightsreport.com/

BELLEVUE, Wash., July 15 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The Second Amendment Foundation has filed a federal lawsuit against Westchester County, New York and its handgun permit licensing officers, seeking a permanent injunction against enforcement of a state law that allows carry licenses to be denied because applicants cannot show "good cause."
SAF is joined in the lawsuit by Alan Kachalsky and Christina Nikolov, both Westchester County residents whose permit applications were denied. Kachalsky's denial was because he could not "demonstrate a need for self protection distinguishable from that of the general public." Nikolov's was denied because she could not demonstrate that there was "any type of threat to her own safety anywhere." In addition to Westchester County, Susan Cacace and Jeffrey Cohen, both serving at times as handgun permit licensing officers, are named as defendants. The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, White Plains Division.

Attorney Alan Gura is representing the plaintiffs, along with attorney Vincent Gelardi with Gelardi & Randazzo of Rye Brook, NY. Gura recently represented SAF and the Illinois State Rifle Association in their landmark Second Amendment Supreme Court victory over the City of Chicago.
Under New York Penal Code Section 400.00, handgun carry permit applicants must "demonstrate good cause for the issuance of a permit," the lawsuit alleges. This requirement violates the Second Amendment, according to the plaintiffs.

"American citizens like Alan Kachalsky and Christina Nikolov should not have to demonstrate good cause in order to exercise a constitutionally-protected civil right," noted SAF Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb. "Our civil rights, including the right to keep and bear arms, should not be subject to the whims of a local government or its employees, just because they don't think someone 'needs' a carry permit. Nobody advocates arming criminals or mental defectives, but honest citizens with clean records should not be denied out of hand."

"Thanks to our recent victory before the Supreme Court," Gottlieb stated, "the Second Amendment now applies to state and local governments. Our lawsuit is a reminder to state and local bureaucrats that we have a Bill of Rights in this country, not a 'Bill of Needs'."

The case is filed as Kachalsky v. Cacace, U.S. Dist. Ct. S.D. N.Y. 10-05413
The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation's oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.

SOURCE Second Amendment Foundation

RELATED LINKS
http://www.saf.org






This is good news and has the potential to make NYS a shall issue, what do you think?

​

 

[DenaliPark]

As I ponder the imminent confirmation of Elena Kagan, who will then join Justice Sonya Sotomayor for a two or three decade tenure on the high court, and whoever the replacement for Ruth Ginsburg will be later this year, I am reminded that we are only one sudden death away from kissing it all goodbye.
While I welcome the lawsuit, it is likely that within just two or three years, the high court will be under the control of those who would not be adverse to upholding Westchester county.

 

[rm23]

This is great news!

 

[wishin]

Glad to see that Gura is arguing the case. From the complaint:

The States may not completely ban the carrying of handguns for self-defense, deny individuals the right to carry handguns in non-sensitive places, deprive individuals of the right to carry handguns in an arbitrary and capricious manner, or impose regulations on the right to carry handguns that are inconsistent with the Second Amendment.

 

[Tony50ae]

As I ponder the imminent confirmation of Elena Kagan, who will then join Justice Sonya Sotomayor for a two or three decade tenure on the high court, and whoever the replacement for Ruth Ginsburg will be later this year, I am reminded that we are only one sudden death away from kissing it all goodbye.
While I welcome the lawsuit, it is likely that within just two or three years, the high court will be under the control of those who would not be adverse to upholding Winchester county.

I agree, but we still must push on. Man if this were to get to the Supreme Court and we actually won this can you just imagine? This would be a great victory for our side! And for us in other states that cannot carry due to no issue or may issue but the police chief will never sign off on it it would be just awsome. However though, I wonder. Would the Supreme Court that is now present rule that this area falls under reasonable restrictions, and let each State decide? Definitely a possibilty.

 

[whalerman]

I never understand why, but when we have approached this discussion on any previous occasion, the thread is closed almost immediately. I would change the subject as soon as possible.

 

[P.O.2010]

As a native New Yorker I am heavily invested in the outcome of this case, not only on philisophical and Constitutional grounds but for obvious practical reasons as well.

Kachalsky is going to be where the rubber meets the road. This case is where we are going to see just how strong the Supreme Court's commitment to an individual right to keep and bear arms is. New York's laws relating to firearms licensing are among the oldest in the nation. They are also among the most corrupt. New York State's laws concerning deadly weapons were specifically and explicitly designed to disarm Blacks, Jews, Italians, Irishmen and Eastern Europeans and this fact was discussed openly during the debates on the floor of the New York State Legislature at the time of the Sullivan Act's passage. The Sullivan Act was also the brain child of a gangster who was desperately championing this law in an effort to continue his dominance as a crime lord. New York City's use of the Sullivan Law to crush firearms ownership is well known as is the pervasive influence of bribery and graft when it comes to deciding who does and does not receive the coveted unrestricted license.

I am fortunate enough to live in an upstate county where I was able to obtain an unrestricted (read: full carry outside of NYC) pistol license. The process was arduous and expensive. I was only able to obtain the unrestricted endorsement because I have documented military training which is both varied and extensive and because I obtained a formal request for the license to be granted signed by a commissioned officer in my chain of command. For your average citizen, who is just as entitled to defend himself and his family as I am, this avenue isn't available.

The Circuit Court will undoubtedly issue a ruling that sides with the government. That much is not in doubt. It would be nice if the Circuit Court did the right thing and saved these Plaintiffs and Mr. Gura the time and money of returning to the Supreme Court but the chances of that are non-existent. My concern is that either: a) the SCOTUS will have decided that they have broken enough 2nd Amendment ground as of late and decline to hear case or b) that Justice Kennedy will be unwilling to go a step further and vote in favor of declaring a right to carry arms outside of the home for self protection.

In any event, if the case makes it to SCOTUS we most likely won't see arguments, much less a decision, until 2011/2012.

 

[Buck Snort]

Denali Park wrote: "While I welcome the lawsuit, it is likely that within just two or three years, the high court will be under the control of those who would not be adverse to upholding Westchester county."

My prediction is that BHO is going to be a one termer and our position vis-a-vis the SCOTUS is going to improve.

 

[ClarkKentAKASuperman]

Why not sue NYC as well?

My question is why not sue New York City at the same time since NYC is an even bigger criminal entity when it comes to denying carry permits. In NYC you have to have been raped/sodomized, robbed, AND murdered in order to get approved for a carry permit.

I lived in Westchester county all of my life until 1999 when I moved slightly north (CT), and back in the late 80's I applied for my full carry, which I was applying for after having gotten my FFL, and was told in no uncertain terms by a person very much in the know at the time that I would never get my full carry permit unless I could bribe the right judge, and that it would take "several thousand dollars" to make it happen...mostly because my family doesn't have any political ties. I wound up only getting the basic "range" permit, which in New York is really a "we want to know the serial #'s of every single handgun you own so we can confiscate them all at a later date" permit. And even then, just to get the crap basic permit I had to wait over 8 months! If I had lived in NYC I wouldn't even have gotten that! I would love nothing more than to see the Supreme Court force ALL of New York to stop playing games and to stop playing "favorites" with peoples 2nd amendment RIGHTS! I say sue them all! But seriously, considering NYC is a mini monarchy with Mikey Bloomberg as monarch, why not go after NYC at the same time?

On a side note I got a kick out of one of the news blurbs on the NYC.org web site: "A new poll by Republican pollster Frank Luntz reveals that NRA members and other Americans who own guns strongly support a sensible approach to gun laws that balances personal freedoms with measures to keep illegal guns out of the hands of criminals." OK Mike, as ring leader of "Mayors Against Illegal Guns", start making good on that one and show us that a law abiding citizen can in fact get a full carry permit in NYC without having his constitutional rights violated (or in other words, without having to show damn good cause). Let's start balancing those personal freedoms in NYC now that we know that the second amendment is in fact a right bestowed upon ALL citizens of these United States and not just those who live in great states with intelligent leaders like the great state of Vermont!

 

[P.O.2010]

Suing Westchester County instead of New York City is a smart move and here's why.

New York City's gun control laws are based on race hatred ("can't let those people have guns..."), a distrust of the citizenry and a desire to generate revenue (a pistol license in NYC costs over $400). On paper, however, the law is consistent. The world view and legal basis on which that consistency is based is severely flawed but it is consistent never the less. There are only two types of pistol licenses in New York City: premises and carry. The NYPD would have you believe that there are more but that's what it ultimately boils down to. You either get a pistol license which allows you to have a pistol in your fixed place of residence or commercial establishment or you have a concealed carry license which is based on employment need (security guard, bank messenger, pharmacist carrying narcotics, retired Police Officer etc). A carry permit is all but impossible to get unless you carry extremely large sums of cash or narcotics, have enormous political pull, are an A list celebrity or are sponsored by another government agency (i.e. NYS Tax Enforcement Peace Officers). And, of course, NYC won an exemption from the law which voids all NYS pistol licenses (with the exception of retired Police Officers) within its boundaries unless separately signed off on by the Police Commissioner.

Upstate New York is different, however. Premises licenses are almost unheard of. In Upstate New York what you see are either unrestricted (so called "full carry") licenses or sportsman licenses which allow you to carry a concealed pistol but only while engaged in target shooting or hunting or while going directly to and from those activities. Some upstate counties are shall issue, others are may issue and some are non-issue.

In Upstate New York there is no consistency to the madness. Even with a sportsman license you can stop for gas or food en route to or from the range because it's a necessary activity. So where is the logic? This type of regulation doesn't even pass the laugh test. You can carry concealed in a restaurant while going to a range but not when you simply want to eat in a restaurant? If carrying concealed weapons in public is dangerous then why the inconsistency? It makes no sense. And after Heller and McDonald it has to make sense. Why would a man be less prone to acts of criminality and/or random violence while going to a range then otherwise? The Second Amendment is now considered "fundamental". You cannot deny a fundamental right based on whim or caprice and you can bet that if this case ever comes to oral arguments before SCOTUS that Scalia, Alito or Roberts will ask a question similar to this. Do you mean to say that the State can make it illegal to possess a Bible except when going directly to and from church? Absurd.

There is also an equal protection argument to be made. A law which is neutral on its face but not in practice is automatically unconstitutional (Wo v. Hopkins). Overwhelming and compelling evidence exists to demonstrate that NYS pistol licensing laws are aimed at denying the poor and the non-white access to a fundamental right and that this practice is widespread and systemic.

I'm going to be very interested to see how this turns out.

 

[wishin]

Here's the Kachalsky complaint filing in case anyone's interested:

http://saf.org/legal.action/ny.lawsuit/kachalsky_complaint.pdf

 

[Art Eatman]

whalerman, closure usually results from excessive thread drift off-topic, as exemplified by Posts #2 and #8, here. And yours.

This is the legal forum. Law, not politics or political philosophy of the "I think" and "They oughta" sort.

 

[LSCurrier]

As a fellow New Yorker I too am looking forward to seeing how this lawsuit ends up.

Any person in their right mind would have to agree that Westchester and NY State is infringing on peoples rights by requiring them to provide "proof of need of protection".

I will watch this closely.

Luke

 

[1911Tuner]

And so it begins. I kinda thought New York would be next. Here's one southern boy who's hopin' that it goes well for ya'll.

 

[everallm]

One of the other fun elements that will spin out of this is going to directly hit NY.

Once the issue of capricious CCW issue in NYS is sorted and it will, possibly later rather than sooner but it will.

This will lay out in no uncertain terms that the State of NY has to adhere in a structured and Constitutionally defensible manner to 2A.

The next step with NYC is far a far easier, 2A as an enumerated constitutional right that applies directly to the individual states cannot legally be applied in a more rigorius, capricious and arbitrary manner INTERNALLY within the state.

You cannot say that, for example the freedom of the press, protection from arbitrary search and seizure etc etc applies in the STATE but can be legally rogorously constrained in one municipality in that state.

No more than in sayyyyyyyy Chicago as opposed to IL......

 

[alan]

Re comment from other New Yorker's, present or ex, I left in 1967, when NYC enacted it's long gun registration foolishness. Never looked back either.

As for the SAF suit that sounds interesting to say the very least, for in my view, this "good cause" requirement is, was and remains a load of crap, especially since "good cause" is nowhere spelled out(defined), and decisions thereon are left in the hands of the permit issuers, who again in my view, have historically shown themselves to be less than trustworthy.

Most likely, eventually, this case will end up before the USSC, where who knows what will or might happen.

 

[mp510]

I think that they are making a mistake by gunning for full carry permits right away. So far, they have precedent that protects people's right to own (and maintain for SD) a handgun in the home. They should have taken an intermediate step and went immediately after unloaded, encased transport (Connecticut, for example, requires a may-issue carry permit to be able to transport an unloaded encased handgun, though you don't need any permit to own that handgun in your home, and a COE that allows purchase is shall issue). I believe that would have been a better stepping stone to take- that way, you have something outside the home that is protected, which can be expanded on. If he loses, which very well could happen, he is putting himself/ our mvmnt in a world of hurt.

 

[armoredman]

I think that the opposing lawyers may try to reach a compromise that keeps them out of SCOTUS, as Gura has a rather enviable track record right now. I wish them the best, maybe someday NYC will have the same type of laws as AZ, AK, and VT.

To put that in perspective, if someone had told me 20 years ago that AZ would be going to Constitutional Carry, I would have laughed in thier face. And I would have been wrong. Good luck!

 

[bushmaster1313]

This is the case that the ACLU et al. should join.

Whatever your view of the right to keep and bear arms, if we let the exercise of a Constitutional right depend on the discretion of a public official we are on the road tyranny.

For example:

Please explain why YOU need to:

Pray
Speak
Read that
Have Lawyer
Receive Due Process
Remain Silent
Etc.

 

[Siberious]

I have to agree with mp510...

I think that they are making a mistake by gunning for full carry permits right away.

I'm a New Yorker (unfortunately) but I live in the rural Upstate area (fortunately) where judges commonly issue unrestricted licenses, if they deem that you are *of good moral character* to get one. Naturally, if you go into the judges chambers for your final interview wearing a ballcap turned 138.62 degrees clockwise, have on gangbanger jeans where your underwear is showing and the crotch is down around your ankles, and you wave your hands and swagger side to side when you talk, you ain't getting a license.

Period.

Now, if you show at least a modicum of respect for the law and YOURSELF, and dress appropriately and professionally (biz casual usually is enough) you'll get your unrestricted license.

Is it subjective? Yes. But the law that is on the books in NY which gives the judges the discretion *will* pass the sniff test for being a *reasonable regulation*.

While there is no list of official restrictions codified in the law, they normally follow those restrictions as set forth in NY Penal Code 400.00 Section 2 which states, in part...

A license for a pistol or revolver, other than an assault weapon or a disguised gun, shall be issued to (a) have and possess in his dwelling by a householder; (b) have and possess in his place of business by a merchant or storekeeper; (c) have and carry concealed while so employed by a messenger employed by a banking institution or express company; (d) have and carry concealed by a justice of the supreme court in the first or second
judicial departments, or by a judge of the New York city civil court or
the New York city criminal court; (e) have and carry concealed while so
employed by a regular employee of an institution of the state, or of any
county, city, town or village, under control of a commissioner of
correction of the city or any warden, superintendent or head keeper of
any state prison, penitentiary, workhouse, county jail or other
institution for the detention of persons convicted or accused of crime
or held as witnesses in criminal cases, provided that application is
made therefor by such commissioner, warden, superintendent or head
keeper; (f) have and carry concealed, without regard to employment or
place of possession, by any person when proper cause exists for the
issuance thereof;

So, a) is what is normally restricted as a Premises Only. b) is a Business Premises restriction. c) is an Employment Restriction, d) is the Judicial Restriction, e) is your Local / County / State Police Restriction, and f) is the Holy Grail of NY Licensing, the Unrestricted License. There are further sub-restrictions that are applied on a county-by-county basis, such as a Premises and Target restriction (which means you can take it out of the house in a concealed manner, to go to the range and back to practice), a Premises and Hunting (we are allowed to Pistol Hunt in the rural NY counties) Camping, Fishing, etc. Some of the best fishing in Upstate NY is also black bear territory, and you'd be stupid to go trout fishing without a sidearm. Bears can get real hungry...

And its provision f) which is what is being challenged by Gura and the SAF. What has always surprised me is that no one has challenged this before in court, because 400.00 Sec 2 clearly states that a permit *shall* be issued to an applicant for premises, not that it *may* be issued. This is a clear example of local authorities misreading the law, and taking the tail end of f) and applying it to a).

Which is why I fear this law suit more than support it...the District Court may very well read the section, declare that its been mis-interpreted when the proper cause blurb gets applied to Premises Applications, force the issuance of Premises Permits as Shall Issue, and leave the CC part of it as a May Issue, because SCOTUS did *NOT* say that you have the right to take that pistol out of your home. They said that *reasonable restrictions* are allowed, and the CC in public being tightly controlled will pass the test of being a reasonable restriction.

How much does anyone want to wager that as soon as local permitting agents (typically the County Judges, of which the majority are uber-Liberals in NY State) are *forced* to issue Premises Licenses, that they will also scale back the issuance of Unrestricted licenses, and NY will go from bad to worse, where the whole state will be just like the City of Chicago, and taking your guns out of the house will be prohibited. Across the whole F'ing STATE.

Yes, Gura is doing wonders for RTKBA, but this state is one which knows how to screw people over, and he's running a real risk of gaining the right for everyone in the state to have a pistol *in* the home at the expense of being able to carry it *outside* of the home. Thats not a trade off that I'm willing to support, because you have to keep in mind that NY State (the city is another matter entirely) could give a rats a@@ if you have a shotgun in the home, or a rifle...the Sullivan Act applies primarily to *concealable weapons*. No Firearms ID card is required to purchase a shotgun or rifle. No permission slip from the local cops (Jersey requires that). Own as many shotguns / rifles as you want. Buy all the ammo you want. Defend your premises and self with the shotgun / rifle. Pistols are another matter entirely in NY State, and this case is clearly not one of picking the low hanging fruit, and runs a very high risk of backfiring.

What he should have challenged is Bloomberg running NYC like a personal fiefdom, and challenge the *city* ordinance that requires permitting just to own a shotgun, which is a cut-and-dried case of a 2A violation. Then, after yet another victory there, and laying even more solid groundwork, go after the *good cause* clause in Penal Code 400.00

 

[ClarkKentAKASuperman]

I think that they are making a mistake by gunning for full carry permits right away. So far, they have precedent that protects people's right to own (and maintain for SD) a handgun in the home. They should have taken an intermediate step and went immediately after unloaded, encased transport (Connecticut, for example, requires a may-issue carry permit to be able to transport an unloaded encased handgun, though you don't need any permit to own that handgun in your home, and a COE that allows purchase is shall issue). I believe that would have been a better stepping stone to take- that way, you have something outside the home that is protected, which can be expanded on. If he loses, which very well could happen, he is putting himself/ our mvmnt in a world of hurt.

I have to disagree that going after full carry permits immediately is a mistake. I think they have to hit hard and fast and the more similar suits the better. There are a boat load of people in Westchester county with lots of money and I think the time is NOW to pony up some of that discretionary cash and start filing similar lawsuits. Why wait for the politicians to pen another stupid law to block any such lawsuits? There is power in numbers and these judges need to be forced to sit up and take notice. The supreme court made a landmark decision in June regarding 2A, and the law abiding citizens and gun owners of Westchester county need to move and move swiftly and with serious intent. This is a war and if you snooze you lose. I don't believe that a loss would put the "movement" in a world of hurt because in any war casualties are to be expected, and just because you might suffer a few casualties doesn't mean you will inevitably lose the war. Do you think the anti gunners are sitting back licking their wounds and taking a break since SCOTUS handed down that decision? Not a chance! I only wish this suit was a class action suit encompassing the thousands of citizens who have been denied full carry permits in Westchester over the years just because they "didn't show good cause".

Let's get serious people, we live in a dangerous time. When I was a kid back in the 60's, my parents thought nothing of letting us kids roam the neighborhoods alone in Westchester, and we didn't even have cell phones to dial 911 if necessary. Today I wouldn't dare let my kids do what I did or disappear for hours at a time without being with them or knowing another adult was with them. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. There used to be a time when you could actually leave your front door wide open and run to the store and leave your car unlocked in the parking lot and not worry about it. Fat chance many people in Westchester are doing those things these days unless they live in an exclusive, gated community. And way back when people laughed about "wasting" money on a car alarm or home security system. I don't think their is a car built today that doesn't come with some form of alarm right from the factory, and I don't think too many new homes are being built that don't have security system wiring built in to the walls. Politicians want everyone to believe that the police can protect you and your kids from harm, but the truth is they can't!

The laws in Westchester (and almost everywhere else for that matter) need to be fought and changed NOW, not in two or three years when we think the anti gunners have given up the fight, because they never will and neither can we! I say fight NOW, fight HARD, fight SMART and fight WITH FORCE! And never forget the three most important words in law: Appeal, appeal, appeal!

 

[P.O.2010]

Establishing additional groundwork isn't necessary. Provision (f) is unconstitutionally vague, period. This vagueness was intentional and was specifically designed to empower gangsters and disarm ethnic minorities. There is ample historical evidence to support this fact. Alan Gura is certain to bring this to the attention of the court and the court will factor that evidence into its decision. The Sullivan Law is one of the oldest continually active gun control laws in the United States. There is an uninterrupted chain of application from its creation until today. If the law was specifically designed to be applied in a discriminatory manner then it stands a very good chance of being struck down on that basis alone.

Putting racism and gangsterism aside, provision (f) provides the licensing official with unlimited discretion to deny the right to bear arms to any person who is not a bank messenger, sitting judge or government official. The right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right. Unlimited discretion in this area with absolutely no legislative guidance concerning how this discretion is to be applied will not pass Constitutional muster. What will most likely happen in this case, should SCOTUS decide to accept it after the petitioner's certain defeat in the Circuit Court, is that either SCOTUS will rule in favor of shall issue outright (i.e. you must issue permits to adults without certain convictions or mental disabilities) or SCOTUS will issue a ruling stating that the law is unconstitutionally vague and that the legislature has to rewrite it so as to more tightly constrain its licensing authorities.

Could this case backfire? Certainly. McDonald and Heller could have as well. It is imperative that we hammer out as much positive 2nd Amendment case law as possible before Roberts, Thomas, Scalia, Alito or Kennedy die, retire or are incapacitated. Sometimes you have to take the chance.

 

[alan]

Siberious:


Re your comments on rifles and or shotguns (long guns), unless the 1967 NYC Registration Ordinance(law) has been scrapped, I don't think that is the case, long guns owned by residents of NYC, and kept in their NYC residences have to be registered.

By the way, how badly these days are the governmental bums sticking their hands into the pockets of the law abiding citizen via the fees charged for this long gun registration, which of course, prevents crime, laughter can be heard in the background.

 

[Siberious]

Well, I see that I need to quote myself here...

@alan...your quote:

Re your comments on rifles and or shotguns (long guns), unless the 1967 NYC Registration Ordinance(law) has been scrapped, I don't think that is the case, long guns owned by residents of NYC, and kept in their NYC residences have to be registered.

My original quote:

you have to keep in mind that NY State (the city is another matter entirely) could give a rats a@@ if you have a shotgun in the home, or a rifle...the Sullivan Act applies primarily to *concealable weapons*

I SPECIFICALLY said that NY STATE is has no restrictions on longarms, be they shotguns or rifles. I also SPECIFICALLY stated that NYC (that means New York CITY) was an entirely different matter, and my final paragraph of the post is quoted here...

What he should have challenged is Bloomberg running NYC like a personal fiefdom, and challenge the *city* ordinance that requires permitting just to own a shotgun, which is a cut-and-dried case of a 2A violation. Then, after yet another victory there, and laying even more solid groundwork, go after the *good cause* clause in Penal Code 400.00

I'm quite familiar with NY Law, both on the state level, and those city preemption's that give Bloomberg the legal wiggle room to do what he does.

@P O 2010...yes, 400.00 Section 2 subsection f) is vague. I'm not arguing that it isn't...what I'm pointing out is that if the plaintiffs in the new case had applied for a Premises License, they most likely would have gotten it, as most of the folk I know in Westchester do get them when they apply. This is especially true when they ask for Premises and Hunting, because only 90 minutes away in Sullivan County, NY State allows Pistol Hunting, and judges know that they cannot deny you the right to pistol hunt in those area's of NY where the state allows it. True, its gaming the system to your advantage in order to get a Pistol License, but why not exploit the law to your advantage?

And to be honest, I don't see McDonald as being all that great a victory for the 2A...all it did was strike down Chicago's complete firearm ban by declaring the 2A to be incorporated against the States, subject to *reasonable regulation*. I'm willing to wager that if the case makes it to SCOTUS, they will refuse to hear it, and let the lower court ruling stand, because its not a *complete* ban. SAF and Gura should have gone after NY City first, then had gone after Westchester County next.

Siberious

 

[alan]

Siberious:

I looked at your post again, taking more careful note of your comment, re what N.Y. State, as opposed to NYC does, re possession of long guns.