Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

High court rejects challenge to NY gun law
AP ^

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 ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; News/Current Events; US: New York
KEYWORDS: banglist; guncontrol; judicailtyranny; scotus; secondamendment; tyranny
I guess they are waiting for the lawsuit to take the usual route through the district courts/appellate courts first.
1 posted on 04/15/2013 7:28:31 AM PDT by Perdogg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

The case is not ripe yet. Someone actually has to be hurt by the law first.


2 posted on 04/15/2013 7:33:19 AM PDT by Timber Rattler (Just say NO! to RINOS and the GOP-E)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

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.


3 posted on 04/15/2013 7:34:08 AM PDT by Sir Napsalot (Pravda + Useful Idiots = CCCP; JournOList + Useful Idiots = DopeyChangey!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

Most likely waiting for any federal law to come out.


4 posted on 04/15/2013 7:37:07 AM PDT by Biggirl ("Jesus talked to us as individuals"-Jim Vicevich/Thanks JimV!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot

That is NYS Supreme Court, not the Fed.


5 posted on 04/15/2013 7:39:03 AM PDT by battlecry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

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.

New


6 posted on 04/15/2013 7:41:23 AM PDT by DH (Once the tainted finger of government touches anything the rot begins)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

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.


7 posted on 04/15/2013 7:41:38 AM PDT by RIghtwardHo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

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.


8 posted on 04/15/2013 7:42:18 AM PDT by GnL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: battlecry

See my post #8.


9 posted on 04/15/2013 7:42:58 AM PDT by GnL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: battlecry

No, it’s SCOTUS. You can jump from a State Sup Ct to SCOTUS if a Federal issue is involved, i.e. 2nd Amendment.


10 posted on 04/15/2013 7:43:08 AM PDT by RIghtwardHo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

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 York’s 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?


11 posted on 04/15/2013 7:48:00 AM PDT by GnL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg
High court rejects challenge to NY gun law

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!!

12 posted on 04/15/2013 7:51:55 AM PDT by GoldenPup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RIghtwardHo

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)


13 posted on 04/15/2013 7:52:28 AM PDT by Mr. K (There are lies, damned lies, statistics, and democrat talking points.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

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.


14 posted on 04/15/2013 7:54:12 AM PDT by plain talk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: battlecry
I read the article

"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.

15 posted on 04/15/2013 7:55:27 AM PDT by Sir Napsalot (Pravda + Useful Idiots = CCCP; JournOList + Useful Idiots = DopeyChangey!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg
This is a US Supreme Court rejection of an appeal of a Westchester County (NY) case involving an old handgun restriction in NYS. (NY law said people need to prove why they need a concealed permit before being issued one).

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.

16 posted on 04/15/2013 7:58:01 AM PDT by dan on the right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

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.


17 posted on 04/15/2013 8:03:02 AM PDT by Candor7 (Obama fascism article:(http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/05/barack_obama_the_quintessentia_1.html))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot

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?


18 posted on 04/15/2013 8:03:45 AM PDT by Clint N. Suhks (The amount of ammo you need is determined after the gunfight.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot

Oh and yeah the AP is stupid.


19 posted on 04/15/2013 8:05:22 AM PDT by Clint N. Suhks (The amount of ammo you need is determined after the gunfight.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: battlecry

The NY Supreme Court is not the high court in NY. It’s the Court of Appeals.


20 posted on 04/15/2013 8:11:32 AM PDT by b4its2late (A Liberal is a person who will give away everything he doesn't own.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

Uh Oh! A bad sign?


21 posted on 04/15/2013 8:12:22 AM PDT by AEMILIUS PAULUS (It is a shame that when these people give a riot)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dan on the right; GnL

Thanks for the clarification.

And Gondring, too. For the additional material.


22 posted on 04/15/2013 8:24:11 AM PDT by Sir Napsalot (Pravda + Useful Idiots = CCCP; JournOList + Useful Idiots = DopeyChangey!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot

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.


23 posted on 04/15/2013 8:27:23 AM PDT by xkaydet65
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg
This one went through that process. The Circuits are somewhat split on the issue. The 7th Circuit has found that Illinois ban on carry permitting is unconstitutional, and the 2nd Circuit has found that NY's permitting process is constitutional. There is no right to a carry permit in NY. Carry permits are granted only to select persons, typically the well-connected.

I think SCOTUS is tired of gun cases. It'll let the Circuits impose or uphold limited carry.

24 posted on 04/15/2013 8:32:43 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: battlecry

In NYS, the “Supreme” Courts are the lower court.


25 posted on 04/15/2013 8:33:35 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: plain talk
-- Apparently they have already bought into the idea that 2nd amendment rights CAN be infringed. --

Yep. SCOTUS has enabled the lower courts of all stripe to limit the RKBA. "Long standing" limitations indeed.

26 posted on 04/15/2013 8:35:54 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

Exactly.


27 posted on 04/15/2013 8:40:52 AM PDT by Usagi_yo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg
i think the high court is doing the right thing.
28 posted on 04/15/2013 8:45:06 AM PDT by Drawn7979
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: plain talk

By individual states. So much for the 14th Amendment.


29 posted on 04/15/2013 8:45:29 AM PDT by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg
Nothing new from the communists controller State of NY. California is now trying to ban guns, so I guess the Federal Government will go along with these two communists Democrat States.
30 posted on 04/15/2013 8:56:58 AM PDT by Logical me
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Timber Rattler

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.


31 posted on 04/15/2013 8:58:59 AM PDT by MHGinTN (Being deceived can be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: RIghtwardHo

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.


32 posted on 04/15/2013 9:00:50 AM PDT by Kickass Conservative (Compliance with Tyranny is Treason...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: GnL; P-Marlowe

What reasons for carrying are acceptable and/or non-acceptable?

Does NY have a list of acceptable reasons? Non-acceptable reasons?


33 posted on 04/15/2013 9:05:59 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True supporters of our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: xzins

Having political connections is the only acceptable reason.;>)


34 posted on 04/15/2013 9:13:02 AM PDT by expat2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN; P-Marlowe
The Constitution says ‘shall not be infringed’. How is requiring governmental permission to keep and bear not infringing on the Constitutionally defined right?

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.

35 posted on 04/15/2013 9:24:36 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True supporters of our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

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.


36 posted on 04/15/2013 9:34:38 AM PDT by yefragetuwrabrumuy (Best WoT news at rantburg.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy
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.

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.

37 posted on 04/15/2013 9:37:45 AM PDT by DSH
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy
Chicago, btw, is justice Stevens.

Justice Stevens, btw, retired from the Court nearly two years ago.

38 posted on 04/15/2013 9:39:34 AM PDT by DSH
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Timber Rattler
The case is not ripe yet. Someone actually has to be hurt by the law first.

Yes, because depriving the rights of millions of people is just standard policy for 'our' government.

39 posted on 04/15/2013 9:49:10 AM PDT by zeugma (Those of us who work for a living are outnumbered by those who vote for a living.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DSH
Justice Stevens, btw, retired from the Court nearly two years ago.

My mistake . . . make that nearly three years ago.

40 posted on 04/15/2013 9:51:05 AM PDT by DSH
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot

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.


41 posted on 04/15/2013 10:16:58 AM PDT by Labyrinthos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

I wish they would engage in even marginally decent (wishful thinking?) journalism and explain WHICH high court.


42 posted on 04/15/2013 11:34:06 AM PDT by fwdude ( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. K
(I may not be a lawyer, or play one on TV, but I did hear that on TV once or twice)

And, you stayed at a Holiday Inn?

43 posted on 04/15/2013 12:23:56 PM PDT by SoldierDad (Proud dad of an Army Soldier who has survived 24 months of Combat deployment.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg
"It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices."

- Chief Justice John Roberts


44 posted on 04/15/2013 12:42:57 PM PDT by Bratch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot
This kind of reporting is sloppy.

I find that to be the case in about 99.9% of reporting.

Pathtic.

45 posted on 04/15/2013 2:51:25 PM PDT by Robert DeLong (u)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Mr. K

Gee. We could start a FReeper legal arm and have some fun. :)


46 posted on 04/15/2013 5:30:08 PM PDT by Politicalmom (Liberalism. Ideas so great they have to be mandatory.-FReeper Osage Orange)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

The 2nd Amendment was under attack when the first law was passed requiring a license to carry.


47 posted on 04/15/2013 10:18:31 PM PDT by VerySadAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Timber Rattler

When some one is injured, we can only hope that the family of the injured seek redress upon the Legislature.


48 posted on 04/15/2013 11:29:50 PM PDT by Hoosier-Daddy ( "It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Bratch

He will live to regret those words.


49 posted on 04/15/2013 11:32:11 PM PDT by Hoosier-Daddy ( "It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson