New York Firearms Forum banner
1 - 20 of 23 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,195 Posts
Nice reading, in essence, we are all screwed because you may get raped, robbed, and murdered in public, but the police will protect you, who by the way are understaffed by poor government planning and BS calls like my kid won't go to school so come over and make them go instead of the patrol actually walking a beat or doing what they are trained to do. But we also don't want you to carry because it may endanger the police who will come to protect you after they get done dealing with the teenager just threatened her mother via text that he/she wasn't going to school and FML its over because of it and he/she lost lost their FB privileges. You know who will protect you? Nobody but yourself! the criminals couldn't give a crap about you. When a person will shoot a cop without blinking and the ramifications of that, that same person has absolutely no regard for human life. What a bunch of horsecrap. Now I will say that the courts are saying, listen the lawmakers are the ones who need to address this issue but jesus, this state is nuts. Only 10 more years and we are out of this toilet.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
79 Posts
Ok, im sorry I don't understand what just happened in this ruling. I admit im ignorant of the facts. Does anything change for us here in NY? Did it just get worse for us? Please don't flame me, I just don't understand all the political dialect...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
160 Posts
Reading so far, this seems to be the most important passage:
"They share the district court’s view that the Supreme Court’s pronouncement in Heller limits the right to bear arms for self-defense to the home.
Heller provides no categorical answer to this case. And in many ways, it raises more questions than it answers. In Heller, the Supreme Court concluded that the Second Amendment codifies a pre-existing “individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.”

In other words, we punt, let the SCOTUS decide.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
160 Posts
More interesting stuff:
"What we know from these decisions is that Second Amendment guarantees are at their zenith within the home. What we do not know is the
scope of that right beyond the home and the standards for determining when and how the right can be regulated by a government."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,225 Posts
I hope none of the Supreme Court justices on our side get sick or die for at least the next 4 years.
Don't hope, pray. Good health for old men is too much to hope for.

Scalia 77 in March
Kennedy 77 in July
Thomas 65 in June
Alito 63 in April

And it only takes 1
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,225 Posts
"As the parties agree, New York has substantial, indeed compelling, governmental interests in public safety and crime prevention. The only question then is whether the proper cause requirement is substantially related to these interests. We conclude that it is."

I agree that NY's proper cause requirement is related to public safety. We're LESS safe with that requirement in place.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,225 Posts
"Given New York's interest in regulating handgun possession for public safety and crime prevention, it decided not to ban handgun possession, but to limit it to those individuals who have an actual reason ("proper cause") to carry the weapon."

And the standard for those who decide what an "actual reason" should be is as arbitrary, capricious and politically/emotionally motivated as it has ever been. BTW, ever heard of a "random crime" being committed? This is madness.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,225 Posts
Looks like this decision was authored by Dick Wesley. Am I right in thinking, then, that he sided with the other two in a unanimous decision? If so, it's strange, because his roots in Livingston County should have taught him the value of shall issue. Guess I was fooled by his pro-2A questions during the oral arguments...damn.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
820 Posts
^ We were going to lose this either way, regardless of how Wesley voted. Lynch (Clinton/Obama appointee) and Katzmann (Clinton) are both as liberal as they get. In a way, Wesley might have done us a favor by voting with the other two and writing the opinion. At least he said (around FN 10) that it's a given that the 2A has some applicability outside the home. The liberals might have held that the 2A is limited to the home.

Wesley is a hunter, though, and not a handgun guy. He's a former ADA, a law-and-order Republican like O'Connor was on the Supreme Court. I heard that in the Osterweil oral arguments, O'Connor (who was sitting on the 2d Cir for that one) seemed to be the least gun-friendly of the three.

Hopefully SCOTUS will grant cert and reverse. I'm glad the 2d Cir didn't take as long as I thought they would to decide this case. There's at least a chance SCOTUS will hear it before O-Bama stocks the Court with freedom-hating, anti-gun, wimpy lefty liberals.

I hate New York.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
445 Posts
It's good to see some movement on this. What does "On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The Second Circuit" mean? I assume it means they are looking to get a supreme court ruling. What is the expected timeline for this? I don't understand how this type of legal stuff works.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
90 Posts
Don't hope, pray. Good health for old men is too much to hope for.

Scalia 77 in March
Kennedy 77 in July
Thomas 65 in June
Alito 63 in April:

And it only takes 1
I was so torn this past election by the extreme partisan views. I'm very moderate -- the potential of a supreme court choice to me was more important this past presidential election than who was actually elected.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
820 Posts
It's good to see some movement on this. What does "On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The Second Circuit" mean? I assume it means they are looking to get a supreme court ruling. What is the expected timeline for this? I don't understand how this type of legal stuff works.
^ With this petition, the plaintiffs are asking SCOTUS to take up the case. If 4 of the 9 justices agree to take it on, then Kachalsky goes before the Supreme Court (although I really don't have much of an idea when, but definitely not soon).

Thanks for updating on this, hermannr!
 
1 - 20 of 23 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top