Federal appeals court upholds gun law

[Parker 213]

http://www.lohud.com...&nclick_check=1

 

Seems the folks in Westchester County, NY lost their bid for “full-carry, concealed-handgun” permits in appeals court today because they failed to show “proper cause” as to why they needed the licenses. Seems anywhere close to NYC is now off limits. And so it progresses.......

 

 

_{^{A federal appeals court today upheld New York’s gun licensing law, rejecting claims by five Westchester residents that the law violates their constitutional right to bear arms.}}

 

_{^{The decision by the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals was hailed by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, whose office defended the state Supreme Court judges who denied the plaintiffs applications for “full-carry, concealed-handgun” permits because they failed to show “proper cause” why they needed the licenses.}}

_{^{The Attorney General said the ruling was a victory “for families across New York who are rightly concerned about the scourge of gun violence that all too often plagues our communities.”}}

 

_{^{“Every day, my office fights to ensure all New Yorkers are safe and secure in their communities,” Schneiderman said in a statement. “This means ensuring that our state’s gun laws are protected and vigorously enforced.”}}

 

_{^{The lawsuit was filed in July 2010 by Alan Kachalsky, Christina Nikolov, Johnnie Nance, Anna Marcucci-Nance, Eric Detmer and the Second Amendment Foundation.}}

 

_{^{U.S. District Judge Cathy Seibel dismissed the lawsuit in September 2011, ruling that there is no constitutional right to carry a concealed handgun in public and that the licensing provision was a legitimate public interest.}}

 

_{^{In today’s ruling, the three circuit judges unanimously agreed, finding that the “proper cause” requirement was not unduly restrictive.}}

 

_{^{“New York determined that limiting handgun possession to persons who have an articulable basis for believing they will need the weapon for self-defense is in the best interest of public safety and outweighs the need to have a handgun for an unexpected confrontation,” the judges wrote. “New York did not run afoul of the Second Amendment by doing so.”}}

_{^{Kachalsky, a lawyer from Rye who was the lead plaintiff, could not immediately be reached for comment.}}

[jamesbod 0]

lesson learned.

never move to NY NJ CT HI MA

liberals rule

[n4p226r 105]

Interesting that judge Cathy seibel, who dismissed the original lawsuit , is a bush appointee

[Dan 177]

Makes so much sense (sarcasm here), R2KBA verified to be an individual right. Yet , the courts say "no you do not have a right to keep a gun with you outside your home". Pretty sure that the 2nd Amendment doesn't have that stipulation in it...

[DirtyDigz 1,811]

Sounds like CCW is definitely going before the Supreme Court then. Didn't MD appellate just rule that RKBA extends outside the home?

[Parker 213]

Yet an hour's drive north to Dutchess County, on that same side of the river, they are still available. Go figure.

[siderman 1,137]

Sounds like CCW is definitely going before the Supreme Court then. Didn't MD appellate just rule that RKBA extends outside the home?

 

yep -they said the right itself was reason enough!

[O-gre 7]

My sig

[EchoMirage 137]

lesson learned.

never move to NY NJ CT HI MA

liberals rule

 

you can carry easily in CT, including getting a non-resident permit

[TK421 2]

And that is exactly why the SAF has been filing these suits in different circuit courts. They need conflicting rulings to ensure the SCOTUS hears the case. One step closer to the final battle are we. (Sorry channeling my inner Yoda)

[Fawkesguy 57]

And that is exactly why the SAF has been filing these suits in different circuit courts. They need conflicting rulings to ensure the SCOTUS hears the case. One step closer to the final battle are we. (Sorry channeling my inner Yoda)

 

Let's hope that final battle takes place before another Obama appointee or two are sitting on the SCOTUS.

[Old Glock guy 1,127]

Let's hope that final battle takes place before another Obama appointee or two are sitting on the SCOTUS.

 

Amen to that!

[mipafox 438]

Courts are politicians, including the US supreme court. Starting 80s years ago, and getting worse. They don't have a care in the world about any Law or The Constitution unless it's convenient to support their political position.

[Soju 153]

Courts are politicians, including the US supreme court. Starting 80s years ago, and getting worse. They don't have a care in the world about any Law or The Constitution unless it's convenient to support their political position.

 

This.

 

Also, don't be confused, politics is also a business.

[JackDaWack 2,895]

Courts are politicians, including the US supreme court. Starting 80s years ago, and getting worse. They don't have a care in the world about any Law or The Constitution unless it's convenient to support their political position.

 

I agree and disagree. Some of these judges don't even find the convenience, they just have their opinion irregardless of whether or not it is constitutional. If a judge doesnt like firearms, they could care less about the 2A, and will find any excuse or make up what ever they can to uphold there position. I mean how can one honestly say that ppl dont have the right to protect themselves out side of there home with gun, but it is some how OK for it inside the home? what makes your house different then the streets? there is no reason behind it, they support there position by saying it takes guns off the street, which, has nothing to do with the 2a... it's a feel good ruling that was effectively concluded through the use of ones personal opinion, and was not ruled on based around the issue.

 

As noted below, your rights are not as important as "public safety", and they did not even bother to show HOW the public is more safe and it outweighs your personal rights, they just made it up with no facts... Good judge sir, please explain how the public is more safe? oh that's right you can't.

 

“New York determined that limiting handgun possession to persons who have an articulable basis for believing they will need the weapon for self-defense is in the best interest of public safety and outweighs the need to have a handgun for an unexpected confrontation,”

[Soju 153]

Did you misquote him. I would have expected it to say "outweighs the right to have a handgun"

 

Oops! Never mind! Rights don't exist! The statement is correct. Carry on.

 

 

Sounds like CCW is definitely going before the Supreme Court then.

 

Don't hold your breath. On second though, maybe holding your breath would be a good idea. The lack of oxygen to the brain may cause you to become delusional, and in your delusions, think it does make it to the Supreme Court!

[ChrisJM981 924]

Sounds like CCW is definitely going before the Supreme Court then. Didn't MD appellate just rule that RKBA extends outside the home?

 

I haven't been able to find anything on the MD apellate court ruling. Would you happen to have a link?

[n4p226r 105]

i dont have a link but maryland lost. it was appealed. and they heard the arguments. mixed feelings were reported based on the judges line of questioning.,

[diamondd817 826]

I haven't been able to find anything on the MD apellate court ruling. Would you happen to have a link?

 

 

Here is a 125 pages or so on it. It is still awaiting a decision from the appeals court.

 

http://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=88287

[diamondd817 826]

i dont have a link but maryland lost. it was appealed. and they heard the arguments. mixed feelings were reported based on the judges line of questioning.,

 

They did not lose, yet.

[ChrisJM981 924]

 

 

 

Here is a 125 pages or so on it. It is still awaiting a decision from the appeals court.

 

http://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=88287

 

Ahh some light reading. Thanks.