New York Gun Control Law Upheld - Another Defeat for the Second Amendment Foundation

[mikeb302000]

Yahoo news reports

The state of New York can continue to require residents who want to carry a concealed handgun in public to obtain a special license, a federal appeals court ruled on Tuesday.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York rejected a challenge brought by several Westchester residents and the Second Amendment Foundation against the state's handgun licensing scheme.

Like numerous other states, New York imposes restrictions on individuals who wish to carry concealed firearms in public.

Under New York law, people can apply to carry a handgun outside the home for the limited purposes of hunting or target practice. But those who want to carry concealed handguns in public without any restrictions must convince state licensing officers they have a special need for self-protection greater than others in the general community.

Alan Gura is having a bad year. Not unlike the NRA itself, which recently suffered a terrible defeat in San Francisco, he and his organization couldn't pick a winner in the election . Now they can't even do something about the "may issue" policy of granting concealed carry licenses in New York.

What's your opinion? It seems to me the tide is turning. What do you think?

Please leave a comment.
Cross posted at Mikeb302000

[naaman fletcher]

1. good news

lets move on to dangerous books. you need a permit to read them, and can only read one per month.

[mikeb302000]

11. Now, that's an intelligent comparison. nt

[friendly_iconoclast]

2. I wouldn't do the happy dance just yet if I were you, Jason...

From the Yahoo News link:

... Alan Gura, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said he disagreed with the ruling and planned to appeal either to a larger panel of the 2nd Circuit or the U.S. Supreme Court.

The state has a right to regulate the carrying of handguns in public, Gura said, but the regulations must be objective.

"If the regulation merely states that the police can do what they feel like in terms of licensing people, then it's really just an arbitrary system," he said.

Gura, who argued the Heller case before the Supreme Court challenging the District of Columbia handgun ban, said the issue of Second Amendment protections in the public sphere would likely land before the Supreme Court in the near future...

I would also remind you that Gura originally lost at the circuit level before winning McDonald:

(note-emphasis added)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._Chicago

...Initially the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit had upheld a Chicago ordinance banning the possession of handguns as well as other gun regulations affecting rifles and shotguns, citing United States v. Cruikshank, Presser v. Illinois, and Miller v. Texas.[2] The petition for certiorari was filed by Alan Gura, the attorney who had successfully argued Heller, and Chicago-area attorney David G. Sigale.[3] The Second Amendment Foundation and the Illinois State Rifle Association sponsored the litigation on behalf of several Chicago residents, including retiree Otis McDonald.

The oral arguments took place on March 2, 2010.[4][5] On June 28, 2010, the Supreme Court, in a 5–4 decision, reversed the Seventh Circuit's decision, holding that the Second Amendment was incorporated under the Fourteenth Amendment thus protecting those rights from infringement by local governments.[6] It then remanded the case back to Seventh Circuit to resolve conflicts between certain Chicago gun restrictions and the Second Amendment...

[mikeb302000]

12. You keep calling me Jason

I told you before I'm not Jason. I'm Colin Goddard.

[friendly_iconoclast]

14. Of *course* you are- when you're not a 60-ish expat living in Italy, amirite?

For an (alleged) former student at a technical university, your pronunciamentoes are rather lacking in certain basic concepts as 'citations', 'links', 'primary sources', and 'factual accuracy':

http://walmartshootings.blogspot.com/p/about-walmart-shooting-blog.html

(note:emphasis added)

...In 2006, Walmart stopped selling guns in two-thirds of its stores, but resumed sales of rifles, shotguns, and ammunition in April of 2011, deciding to sell rifles and ammo in half of its 4000 stores (and handguns as well in Alaska stores). They even sell assault rifles....

BTW, when do we get to see the raw video recordings you made at various gun shows?

Wouldn't want people to somehow get the notion that you're just an antigun version of James O'Keefe,
would you?

[ileus]

3. Such a nice state...so far behind the times.

Living in the past where the 1% is allowed to determine the value of life for the 99%.

Real progressive of them.

[Starboard Tack]

7. You forgot the sarcasm tag.

[gejohnston]

8. you mean holding up a system

that gives a police sgt. arbitrary power over any civil liberty? A law authored by corrupt politician who was connected to organized crime?

[Starboard Tack]

9. That's what cops do every day. It's part of their job.

[gejohnston]

10. this is the only one

not subject to judicial overview.

[mikeb302000]

13. Not arbitrary, based on several factors and overseen by review boards. nt

[friendly_iconoclast]

15. Unless it's based upon having a clean record and passing an objective test, it's arbitrary.

[gejohnston]

16. Maybe that is how it is done in Italy

in NYC it is a police Sgt reviewed by a lieutenant. In most other places it is up to the county sheriff. There is no review boards and the only objective criteria is the same as shall issue states.

[Straw Man]

17. False.

Not arbitrary, based on several factors and overseen by review boards.

In upstate counties, handgun permits are administered through the Sheriff's office, and each application is reviewed by a county judge, who has total discretion to approve or deny. Essentially, your fate is in one person's hands, and there are no established standards or codified criteria.

[GreenStormCloud]

4. Next stop, SCOTUS. N/T

[Atypical Liberal]

5. Yup. No law is going to stand where only rich people can get permits.

But those who want to carry concealed handguns in public without any restrictions must convince state licensing officers they have a special need for self-protection greater than others in the general community.

And it turns out that people who are wealthy or have special connections end up being those people who have a "special need for self-protection greater than others in the general community".

I can't believe anyone would support such elitist crap. Everyone has the right to self-protection. To state that only certain people have a "special need for self-protection greater than others is abhorrent.

[slackmaster]

6. It was touch and go for a while there