Skip to comments.High court rejects challenge to NY gun law
Posted on 04/15/2013 7:28:31 AM PDT by Perdogg
The Supreme Court is staying out of the gun debate for now.
The justices on Monday declined to hear a challenge to a strict New York law that makes it difficult for residents to get a license to carry a concealed handgun in public.
(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...
The case is not ripe yet. Someone actually has to be hurt by the law first.
Yes, but the news article didn’t say if there was a previous ruling from any lower court. How did it ‘jump’ to the Supreme Court directly?
This kind of reporting is sloppy.
Most likely waiting for any federal law to come out.
That is NYS Supreme Court, not the Fed.
Yep, by then most of the gun owners will have had their guns confiscated and many imprisoned.
The worst thing is that they will have criminal histories due to being in jail and will never see their guns again and be prevented from ever purchasing one again sine they now have criminal records.
I don’t know about that. I practiced for 25 years and, at times, before SCOTUS and they don’t really care about that. This was an optimal moment to address the issue. While you may be correct, I must say I am pretty much shocked.
This is the SCOTUS. This is not the NY law recently enacted (assault weapons, etc). This case that was rejected is related to concealed carry permits only.
See my post #8.
No, it’s SCOTUS. You can jump from a State Sup Ct to SCOTUS if a Federal issue is involved, i.e. 2nd Amendment.
Poor reporting as usual by AP. Anyone reading the headline assumes the case involved is the recent magazine and assault weapon case. NOT TRUE.
The case involved is Kachalsky v. Cacace and the appeal was related to one issue: Does New Yorks handgun licensing scheme violate the Second Amendment by requiring an applicant to demonstrate “proper cause to
obtain a license to carry a concealed handgun in public?
What a bunch of cajones-less, gutless, disgusting, pukes!! Got the backbone of a jellyfish. No wonder EVERYONE hates them AND the politicians. Give'em all the French Revolution treatment!!
Are you still practicing? How about filing an “amicus brief” in our favor?
(I may not be a lawyer, or play one on TV, but I did hear that on TV once or twice)
I would be surprised if the supremes weigh in on state or local gun restrictions. Apparently they have already bought into the idea that 2nd amendment rights CAN be infringed.
"WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court is staying out of the gun debate for now."
and jumped to the conclusion as it is SCOTUS. But nowhere in this particular article clarified in this , hence my confusion.
I still stick with my 'sloppy reporting' comment.
The case went through the federal court system. The law was affirmed at the US Court of Appeals (the appellate court in federal system; the District Courts being the trial courts).
Nothing to do with the recent legislation, which will likely take a long time to work its way up to SCOTUS.
In NY, the state Supreme Court is the lowest court - the trial court level. Appeals are to the the Appellate Divisions and final appeals to the NYS Court of Appeals. Using “Supreme Court” as the trial level court in NY has confused everyone outside NY for years.
Liberal fascist dickweeds even control the NYSC.
Things are going to get disorderly in NY and Conn., since there are no remedies for those whose state rights are removed, by a fascist law.Those wronged will be forced to act.This is exactly as Obama wants it.He wants some “conservatives” to pound on and make an example of.
The New York Supreme Court is the lowest level court in the state.
Yeah it’s fugged up but what do you expect from New York?
Oh and yeah the AP is stupid.
The NY Supreme Court is not the high court in NY. It’s the Court of Appeals.
Uh Oh! A bad sign?
Thanks for the clarification.
And Gondring, too. For the additional material.
The plaintiffs made a direct appeal to SCOTUS for a writ of certiorari, but since there have been no cases before any federal, state, or municpal court in NY regarding this law SCOTUS refused to grant the writ. Also, since no plaintiff claimed penalty or loss under the law at this time there was no standing. bBy refusing to grant the writ SCOTUS creates no precedent and provides no bar to future requests.
I think SCOTUS is tired of gun cases. It'll let the Circuits impose or uphold limited carry.
In NYS, the “Supreme” Courts are the lower court.
Yep. SCOTUS has enabled the lower courts of all stripe to limit the RKBA. "Long standing" limitations indeed.
By individual states. So much for the 14th Amendment.
The Constitution says ‘shall not be infringed’. How is requiring governmental permission to keep and bear not infringing on the Constitutionally defined right? Simply writing a law to require government permission is harming by infringing. What is really at play is the unSCOTUS preparing to nullify the Constitution by fiat ruling. Which will be amusing since the Heller ruling.
The Optimal Moment will be after a few more Kagan’s and Wise Latina’s are Seated and the Old White (and One Old Black) Guy have died off or retired.
What reasons for carrying are acceptable and/or non-acceptable?
Does NY have a list of acceptable reasons? Non-acceptable reasons?
Having political connections is the only acceptable reason.;>)
You're right, and the 2d amendment doesn't even mention Congress, Fed Gov't, state gov't, local government.
well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
This reads: "NO ONE shall infringe." It's taken out of the hands of the "states rights when convenient" crowd.
Furthermore, it specifically says PEOPLE!
The right to keep and bear arms is intentionally designed to apply to the people.
New York is in the 2nd circuit, which means such appeals have to go through Sotomayor, who can choose to offer it to the court or not. If she would have, it would have taken four justices to agree to hear it for it to be accepted.
Chicago, btw, is justice Stevens.
That isn't how the cert petition process works at the U.S. Supreme Court. If any four Justices had wanted to hear this case, cert would have been granted.
Justice Stevens, btw, retired from the Court nearly two years ago.
Yes, because depriving the rights of millions of people is just standard policy for 'our' government.
My mistake . . . make that nearly three years ago.
This case went the the SCOTUS on an application for cert from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. I can only speculate, but I suspect the SCOTUS denied cert because of the changes in the New York law (the enactment of the “SAFE Act”) that occurred subsequent to the Second Circuit decision that is at issue.
I wish they would engage in even marginally decent (wishful thinking?) journalism and explain WHICH high court.
And, you stayed at a Holiday Inn?
"It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices."
- Chief Justice John Roberts
I find that to be the case in about 99.9% of reporting.
Gee. We could start a FReeper legal arm and have some fun. :)
The 2nd Amendment was under attack when the first law was passed requiring a license to carry.
When some one is injured, we can only hope that the family of the injured seek redress upon the Legislature.
He will live to regret those words.