NY Gun Law Stands


#1

Supremes DECLINE to review NY gun law today. Cuomo wins…we all lose. :banghead:


#2

Shameful. Thank God I’m down here, not up there.


#3

What gun law is this?


#4

The justices turned down a case concerning a New York State law that requires people seeking permits to carry guns in public to demonstrate that they have a special need for self-protection. In urging the justices to hear the case, the National Rifle Association called the law “a de facto ban on carrying a handgun outside the home.”

As is their custom, the justices gave no reasons for declining to hear the case.


#5

Thanks, UNT. Especially when there is a split in the circuits, it would be nice if the SCOTUS did its job and tried to answer some of the tough questions emerging from its Heller decision.


#6

Jazz…follow UNT’s link above for the full story.
What this means is that they couldn’t get FOUR justices to say the law should be reviewed. That means both Roberts and Kennedy joined the libs in rejecting the need for review.
At a deeper level…it is a way of putting off a necessary decision (meanwhile abridging individual rights) without actually making a decision.
My gut on this says that since Sandy Hook and all the brouhaha with gun laws CURRENTLY in front of legislatures from the feds to the states…the Supremes felt that there was no sense in ruling on this NOW…since they would short circuit the legislative process and incur the wrath of large segments of society pro/con
regardless of their decision.

I’m NOT in any way agreeing with that reasoning. I think they are chicken***t as they are supposed to be the defender of individual rights and the NY law SUCKS by that measure for nowhere in the 2nd …(where this court has ALREADY RULED there is an individual right to keep and bear arms)… is there a part which says…“ONLY IN YOUR HOME UNLESS YOU CAN PROVE YOU NEED THEM OUTSIDE OF THE HOUSE FOR A SPECIFIC REASON”.
Hopefully…putting off this decision does not kill the issue. It makes me worry about how they will rule on Chicago’s total ban on outside carry.


#7

they are refusing to do their job. They should be fired! (impeached)


#8

Who the blazes does Schneiderman think he is?!

The case turned down by the Supreme Court on Monday, Kachalsky v. Cacace, No. 12-845, was brought by five New Yorkers who had been denied permits to carry handguns in public. In urging the justices not to hear the case, Eric T. Schneiderman, New York’s attorney general, said the state’s permit requirement was a reasonable regulation that was consistent with the Second Amendment. The Illinois law, by contrast, he said, amounted to a blanket prohibition.

It takes mighty big brass one to plead to the Supreme Court NOT to hear a case on U.S. law. I’m sure he’s a nice little tyrant, though.

Besides, at least according to the article, he’s wrong about the IL law.

a divided three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, in Chicago, struck down an Illinois law that banned carrying guns in public.

Either the article is wrong, or that AG just shot something stupid out of his mouth.


#9

He is doing EXACTLY his job. To DEFEND NYS against a group trying to outlaw a duly passed law. The BEST way to defend against a lawsuit it to do what you can to make sure it never gets to court. That we think he is a PUTZ is of no consequence. AND there IS a qualitative difference between Illinois law and NY law…but BOTH should be found unconstitutional.
Fix your blame on the 6 justices (at least) who voted not to take the case based on the arguments made by BOTH the pro and con groups.