Why not New York ??
Is the NRA afraid of Bloomberg ?
I live in Upstate NY and can not legally carry my handgun into any part of New York City. This is the place where it is needed most for personal protection ! I usually visit a few friends and family there a few times a year. I think its a crappy deal and should have been blanketed to every corner of the United States !
WASHINGTON - Gun laws in New York State don't appear to be in immediate danger, but firearms regulations of many kinds eventually could be challenged in court as a result of Thursday's U. S. Supreme Court ruling affirming that individual Americans have the right to keep and bear arms.
The landmark decision, which overturned the District of Columbia's handgun ban, clarifies the confusing wording of the Constitution's Second Amendment. Gun ownership is an individual right, not reserved only for state militias, the court said.
But that right can be limited, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in his 5-4 majority opinion - which did not spell out the full extent to which governments can restrict gun ownership.
The District of Columbia is free to impose "some measures regulating handguns," Scalia wrote in the case, District of Columbia v. Heller. "But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home."
Gun rights advocates said they were thrilled with the decision, but they planned to take immediate aim at gun-control laws most similar to the one the high court struck down.
The National Rifle Association said it would challenge laws in Chicago and San Francisco that, while not as restrictive as the District of Columbia's, ban the ownership of handguns in most cases.
"I don't think we will see much in the way of litigation until cases like that are settled," said Thomas H. King, president of the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association. "I can't see it happening right away in New York."
New York City Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, who heads Mayors Against Gun Violence, noted that the court allowed for "reasonable regulation" of firearms.
"All of the laws on the books in New York State and New York City" would pass that test, Bloomberg said.
In the court's opinion, Scalia stressed that many gun regulations would remain in effect despite the ruling.
"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited," he wrote. "Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."
But Scalia's opinion did not specify what conditions and qualifications would be permissible. And in a dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens said that could overburden the federal courts with gun litigation.
"I do not know whether today's decision will increase the labor of federal judges to the `breaking point,' . . . but it will surely give rise to a far more active judicial role in making vitally important national policy decisions than was envisioned at any time in the 18th, 19th or 20th centuries," Stevens wrote.
Eventually, some of that gun litigation could come from New York State, gun rights advocates said.
"I think this is a major step; it's really going to prove to be a landmark case," said Joseph P. Tartaro of Buffalo, president of the Second Amendment Foundation. "But like a lot of other landmark cases, it does some things, but it doesn't solve all the problems."
Tartaro said he would like laws changed to allow those who can show "good cause" for needing a weapon to carry handguns. "Good cause," he said, also should be the standard for denying a permit.
James Ostrowski, a Buffalo lawyer, said he would examine the ruling to see if it could help a client charged with possessing a handgun without a permit.
"It's going to create waves of litigation," Ostrowski predicted.
That alarmed gun-control advocates.
The ruling "will most likely embolden criminal defendants and ideological extremists to file new legal attacks on existing gun laws," said Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. "With the help of the Brady Center's legal team, those attacks can and must be successfully resisted in the interest of public safety."
District of Columbia Mayor Adrian Fenty said the city will comply with the ruling, but he warned of its ramifications.
"Introducing more handguns into the district will mean more handgun violence," Fenty said.
But Sen. Charles E. Schumer, D-N. Y., long the leading gun-control advocate in Congress, offered a measured reaction.
"While the Supreme Court has ruled, not unreasonably, that individuals have a right to bear arms, the court clearly allows for reasonable regulations like the Brady Law and the assault weapons ban," Schumer said. "It is my hope and belief that the ruling will not change much in terms of how the states and the federal government are allowed to regulate guns."
And both major-party presidential candidates reacted positively to the decision.
"I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms, but I also identify with the need for crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that plagues our streets through common-sense, effective safety measures," said Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, the presumptive Democratic nominee. "The Supreme Court has now endorsed that view."
But the Republican candidate, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, noted that Obama didn't join him on a friend-of-the-court brief asking the court to uphold the right to keep and bear arms.
"Unlike the elitist view that believes Americans cling to guns out of bitterness, today's ruling recognizes that gun ownership is a fundamental right - sacred, just as the right to free speech and assembly," McCain said.
The District of Columbia's handgun ban, adopted in 1976, stood unchallenged until Dick Anthony Heller, a security guard, sued.
"I'm thrilled I am now able to defend myself and my household in my home," Heller, 66, said after the opinion was released.
In the majority opinion, Scalia - joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito - took note of British and American historical background that indicated the Founding Fathers would have intended the Second Amendment to apply to individuals.
The high court never had before interpreted the amendment to convey a personal right to possess weapons, and the minority - Stevens, joined by Justices David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer - said there's good reason for that.
"The Second Amendment protects militia-related, not defense-related, interests," Breyer contended in a separate dissent.
I live in Upstate NY and can not legally carry my handgun into any part of New York City. This is the place where it is needed most for personal protection ! I usually visit a few friends and family there a few times a year. I think its a crappy deal and should have been blanketed to every corner of the United States !
WASHINGTON - Gun laws in New York State don't appear to be in immediate danger, but firearms regulations of many kinds eventually could be challenged in court as a result of Thursday's U. S. Supreme Court ruling affirming that individual Americans have the right to keep and bear arms.
The landmark decision, which overturned the District of Columbia's handgun ban, clarifies the confusing wording of the Constitution's Second Amendment. Gun ownership is an individual right, not reserved only for state militias, the court said.
But that right can be limited, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in his 5-4 majority opinion - which did not spell out the full extent to which governments can restrict gun ownership.
The District of Columbia is free to impose "some measures regulating handguns," Scalia wrote in the case, District of Columbia v. Heller. "But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home."
Gun rights advocates said they were thrilled with the decision, but they planned to take immediate aim at gun-control laws most similar to the one the high court struck down.
The National Rifle Association said it would challenge laws in Chicago and San Francisco that, while not as restrictive as the District of Columbia's, ban the ownership of handguns in most cases.
"I don't think we will see much in the way of litigation until cases like that are settled," said Thomas H. King, president of the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association. "I can't see it happening right away in New York."
New York City Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, who heads Mayors Against Gun Violence, noted that the court allowed for "reasonable regulation" of firearms.
"All of the laws on the books in New York State and New York City" would pass that test, Bloomberg said.
In the court's opinion, Scalia stressed that many gun regulations would remain in effect despite the ruling.
"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited," he wrote. "Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."
But Scalia's opinion did not specify what conditions and qualifications would be permissible. And in a dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens said that could overburden the federal courts with gun litigation.
"I do not know whether today's decision will increase the labor of federal judges to the `breaking point,' . . . but it will surely give rise to a far more active judicial role in making vitally important national policy decisions than was envisioned at any time in the 18th, 19th or 20th centuries," Stevens wrote.
Eventually, some of that gun litigation could come from New York State, gun rights advocates said.
"I think this is a major step; it's really going to prove to be a landmark case," said Joseph P. Tartaro of Buffalo, president of the Second Amendment Foundation. "But like a lot of other landmark cases, it does some things, but it doesn't solve all the problems."
Tartaro said he would like laws changed to allow those who can show "good cause" for needing a weapon to carry handguns. "Good cause," he said, also should be the standard for denying a permit.
James Ostrowski, a Buffalo lawyer, said he would examine the ruling to see if it could help a client charged with possessing a handgun without a permit.
"It's going to create waves of litigation," Ostrowski predicted.
That alarmed gun-control advocates.
The ruling "will most likely embolden criminal defendants and ideological extremists to file new legal attacks on existing gun laws," said Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. "With the help of the Brady Center's legal team, those attacks can and must be successfully resisted in the interest of public safety."
District of Columbia Mayor Adrian Fenty said the city will comply with the ruling, but he warned of its ramifications.
"Introducing more handguns into the district will mean more handgun violence," Fenty said.
But Sen. Charles E. Schumer, D-N. Y., long the leading gun-control advocate in Congress, offered a measured reaction.
"While the Supreme Court has ruled, not unreasonably, that individuals have a right to bear arms, the court clearly allows for reasonable regulations like the Brady Law and the assault weapons ban," Schumer said. "It is my hope and belief that the ruling will not change much in terms of how the states and the federal government are allowed to regulate guns."
And both major-party presidential candidates reacted positively to the decision.
"I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms, but I also identify with the need for crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that plagues our streets through common-sense, effective safety measures," said Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, the presumptive Democratic nominee. "The Supreme Court has now endorsed that view."
But the Republican candidate, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, noted that Obama didn't join him on a friend-of-the-court brief asking the court to uphold the right to keep and bear arms.
"Unlike the elitist view that believes Americans cling to guns out of bitterness, today's ruling recognizes that gun ownership is a fundamental right - sacred, just as the right to free speech and assembly," McCain said.
The District of Columbia's handgun ban, adopted in 1976, stood unchallenged until Dick Anthony Heller, a security guard, sued.
"I'm thrilled I am now able to defend myself and my household in my home," Heller, 66, said after the opinion was released.
In the majority opinion, Scalia - joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito - took note of British and American historical background that indicated the Founding Fathers would have intended the Second Amendment to apply to individuals.
The high court never had before interpreted the amendment to convey a personal right to possess weapons, and the minority - Stevens, joined by Justices David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer - said there's good reason for that.
"The Second Amendment protects militia-related, not defense-related, interests," Breyer contended in a separate dissent.
0
-
If/when the Chicago and San Francisco gun bans get taken out by the Supreme Court, explicitly confirming that the 2nd Amendment applies to the states as well as the federal government, NYC's laws at the very least should have to be loosened to comply. 0 -
We have a saying in New England "FNY" 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Red XIV
If/when the Chicago and San Francisco gun bans get taken out by the Supreme Court, explicitly confirming that the 2nd Amendment applies to the states as well as the federal government, NYC's laws at the very least should have to be loosened to comply.
Sounds real good except for the fact that walking dildo mayor might decide to spend a few of his billions to fight it in court.
The NRA knows this and also knows the contributions would never be enough .
Remember the Georgia gun dealer who gave up last month ?0 -
quote:Originally posted by rgerge
We have a saying in New England "FNY"
You must be one of those Boston red socks losers!
As a upstate New Yorker I think that both New York city and Massivetwopoops both suck for free people. I do like NH, VT and ME.0 -
No sir, native Mainiac, don't like them sox, no sir, big Philly's fan. Don't fugit ya buttah fer ya lobastah. You boy's in upstate should seceed from the wack jobs down in the city!![;)] 0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
5 comments