As a native New Yorker I can tell you that City government will do anything in its power to obstruct RKBA. The only way that any significant headway will be made is for the court to eliminate entire classes of regulation, namely registration and licensing. Otherwise, it's all wasted breath. The City will obey the Supreme Court's ruling in letter but not in spirit. They'll give you the required permit...but only after a year of waiting and $2000. They'll let you register...but only after you make five separate trips to One Police Plaza with arcane paperwork at the most inconvenient hours imaginable. It'll be similar to black people trying to register to vote in some states in 1930. Sure, you have the right but good luck trying to exercise it in anything approaching a practicable matter.
Supreme Court likely decision to overturn Chicago's gun ban could impact New York
- Thread starter Cavalier Knight
- Start date
- Status
How do we get out from under the current restrictions without having courts ruling on them?
One way or another some court is going to have to decide if these are applicable right?
I'm no lawyer so I'd have no idea if a case would have to get to the federal level to defeat these restrictions or could it be done thru state courts?
Takes 2 monkeys, Mayors Daley & Bloomberg - what became of the third?
CoRoMo
Member
Don't ask me; I'm a cursed pessimist. I don't know how a citizen of California will ever convince a court that a 10rd magazine limit is unreasonable. When I think about it, I imagine the court deciding that the magazine limit should be set at 8 rounds. IOW, we head into court thinking we can expand freedom, just to be stripped of some. Sometimes, I'd just as soon leave well enough alone rather than risk it. Especially at the federal level. If THEY get involved in "deeming what is reasonable", we may all say goodbye to suppressors, SBRs, etc. because the feds want a more uniform regulatory definition of what reasonable means.
Like I said, don't ask me.
Deanimator
Member
At one time, Alabama, Mississippi, etc. would do anything to obstruct equal protection under the law.
How'd that work out for them?
They don't have to like the law, merely obey it.
They'll get over it. George Wallace did.
1. The State Legislature could pass a law prohibiting NYC's strict gun control
2. Yes, without help from the political process (the legislature), a court would have to strike down the laws.
3. State courts can strike down the laws. (My opinion: state courts are not the way to go here. The state courts will not do touch NYC's laws. Gun rights are a federal question and thus federal courts can entertain challenges. Taking NYC to federal court is the best bet.)
bushmaster1313
Member
It will be a long and slow process in anti-gun jurisdictions.
Local Federal District judges appointed by Democrat Presidents will likely side with the anti-gunners.
cyclopsshooter
Member
you put your middle finger over your eyes and use your thumbs to close in that little flappy thing of skin into the canal...
Prince Yamato
Member
I wasn't even talking about carry. I just meant a non-resident permit to posses. You can't even bring a handgun into NYS, let alone, NYS. I think is akin to a de facto ban on handguns for non-residents. Seems like an easy thing to challenge to me (provided we win McDonald.)
.38 Special
Member
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2006
- Messages
- 7,371
That "little flappy thing of skin" is called the "tragus".
Hopefully you can now die happy.
Hopefully you can now die happy.
bushmaster1313
Member
See the Palmer case. It is based on right to bear = right to carry.
Igloodude
Member
wishin said:
The third was Mayor Adrian Fenty.
MachIVshooter
Member
And we have a winner!
Perhaps if the McDonald case goes in our favor, said rectums will pucker enough that it cuts off bloodflow to the aforementioned appendage that the politicians in question do not use anyway.
LickitySplit
Member
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2007
- Messages
- 83
Tom "Mumbles" Menino - Mayor of Boston and along with Bloomberg, cofounder of "Mayors Against Illegal Guns". Trust me... he'll be screaming like a chimpanzee caught in a leg hold trap if any of MA's/Bostons gun control laws are in danger of being overturned.
Dream on.
In Heller the court only held that a complete ban on handgun ownership violated the Constitution. They would not take a position on individual restrictions imposed by states. I think they will continue that line of thinking with McDonald and simply apply Heller to the states as well. That leaves states free to set whatever restrictions they want, short of an outright ban. The system in DC now post-Heller is restrictive as heck. But it passes muster under Heller. NYC is really no worse than DC in this regard, better in some ways perhaps.
I am in the uncomfortable position of agreeing with Bloomberg here.
In any case, I'd rather see the issue hashed out through voting and legislation than dictated by courts. Just like most things.
AJChenMPH
Member
Y'all are forgetting something here: there will be little to no challenge to NYC laws unless the local population demands it. The vast majority of law-abiding NYC'ers are anti's, so even if NYC laws are struck down by SCOTUS or other courts, there will be no hurry to implement 2A/RKBA since the NYC government knows the local population won't push for it. (I grew up in NYC and still work there.)
OP
OP
Cavalier Knight
Member
That's exactly right. It will only take one person to bring a suit against NYC. It's not majority rules when it comes to rights.
Arrogant NYC will go the way of arrogant Chicago. DC has cases pending against it that the district will lose continuing to establish the RKBA - in other words the courts are far from done with DC's restrictive gun laws. With incorporation under McDonald it will no longer matter if a city and/or state are almost uniformally anti-RKBA, just like Brown or Rowe local restrictions will be swept aside. The parameters of the RKBA and the level of scrutiny will be set by the lower courts as refereed by the USSC. We already know that the USSC considers the RKBA a fundamental right and that rational basis (wherein fall most so called "reasonable restrictions") is out and that scrutiny will be at least intermediate if not strict. As for liberal judges gutting the RKBA - that is a possiblity down the road - but how well have conservative judges done in gutting Rowe?
- Status
