Posted on 10/16/2018 12:47:55 PM PDT by PROCON
A group of states from across the country is backing a challenge to New York City’s restrictive gun laws. Led by Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry, they filed a brief last week in the pending request for cert of three NYC gun owners — Romolo Colantone, Efrain Alvarez, and Jose Anthony Irizarry — who argue the city’s “premises permit” scheme, which drastically restricts the ability to leave one’s premises with a firearm, is unconstitutional.
The gun owners are licensed to have handguns on their residence or business but under current law can only leave with them to go to a shooting range inside the city or to go hunting. They have long argued to the court that this precluded them from such basic freedoms as taking their gun to a range in another city or to a second home upstate. Landry agrees.
“The restrictive policies memorialized in New York City’s ‘premises permit’ scheme unduly burdens the Second Amendment rights held by all Americans,” said Landry. “Criminalizing travel with a securely stored firearm creates an imbalance in our federal system that weighs against lawful exercise of the Second Amendment inside and outside of New York City.”
Landry is joined in the brief by attorneys general from Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Michigan, Montana, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, and Wisconsin while the Republican governors of Mississippi and Kentucky have also signed on.
Two other briefs have been filed in favor of the plaintiffs by law enforcement lobby groups spearheaded by the Western States Sheriffs’ Association and a variety of pro-gun groups to include Gun Owners of America, Gun Owners Foundation, The Heller Foundation, Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund, Downsize DC Foundation, DownsizeDC.org, and Restoring Liberty Action Committee.
Colantone, Alvarez, and Irizarry are allied with the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association and took city officials to court in 2014, arguing the restrictive license forces gun owners to leave firearms in sometimes unoccupied buildings for long periods of time– such as in cases where they are at another home or out-of-town– and forces them to exclusively use the city’s few ranges, most of which are private clubs with comparatively high fees when compared to ranges outside of the City. Police countered the men’s argument by saying the ban on transporting even unloaded weapons promotes public safety by limiting the presence of handguns on city streets.
U.S. District Judge Robert W. Sweet, an appointment by President Jimmy Carter, rejected the case in favor of the city in 2015 and a panel for the 2nd U.S. Circuit this February affirmed his decision contending the restrictions on-premises licenses do not violate the Second Amendment. The panel held that the license holders could always purchase a second gun for a second home or business rather than transport one firearm back and forth and, despite the argument that the in-city ranges were more expensive, they were still locally available to the gun owners and, when traveling outside of the city to shooting competitions, guns can be rented or borrowed for that purpose.
Guns can be rented or borrowed for that purpose....................
Totally bonkers excuses by idiots with zero knowledge of weapons and the “fit” gun owners have with their own weapons.
“Shall not be infringe” seems to be beyond the comprehension of some!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Yay for Michigan.
Need to overturn Kaliforistans egregious guns laws as well
“Here’s the problem; if the premise permit is repealed, the store owners will lose their gun rights, completely. The government will lob them in with every other NYC citizen and make it nearly impossible for them to get a full carry.”
Not really. The Heller decision confirmed the individual right to own guns and at the very least keep them on their property. If it’s overturned on the basis of Heller it would restore that right.
LOL, ‘Animal House’, one of the best comedies EVAH!
We don't have rights "granted" by the Second Amendment. Our Natural Rights are endowed to us by our Creator; the Second Amendment merely recognizes that fact.
Icing on the cake would be constitutional
carry. If I don’t need a permit to carry
a weapon to go hunting, why would I need
one to carry a weapon anywhere else?
Just because one pays a fee. It should
be the other way around. If you are
unsure of your abilities and judgement,
then one should seek training. Just
my humble opinion.
I agree with everything you posted.
That said, a few thoughts ...
I don’t need a license to ride a horse, but do to drive my truck.
Having a Utah concealed weapon permit (note: not concealed firearm permit) I can carry a concealed Sig, snap baton, k-bar, etc. into a store, a school, or the state capitol without ruffling the feathers of the gendarmes. Further, every night, a background check is run on every permit holder. If I’m stopped because I match a BG’s description, I’m much less likely to spend handcuff time on the curb. Felons are quite unlikely to have permits.
It costs $10 every five years to renew. A burger and fries.
Constitutional carry is the solution, but being where we are, I’m just pointing out what I see as some (albeit minor) upside benefits of the current silly mess we’ve wandered into since the founding.
Oh, and I think all of us can benefit from some training and practice now and again :o)
Stay safe.
Two happy predictions-
Sessions and Rottenstein will be gone no later than March 2019. If Trump has enough juice he will be able to appoint a new AG who will appoint a new Special Prosecutor who will indict many of the bad actors from the FBI, DOJ, CIA, Fusion GPS. Now it will be these maggots who will be broken out in a cold sweat and will have to pay high priced DC swamp lawyers. Forget the regular DOJ it has too many Democrat saboteurs. You appoint a Special Prosecutor who in turn will hire tough outsiders (like from Texas and The Dakotas) who are conservative or neutral lawyers.
#2-Ruth Bader Ginsburg will be up and out one way or another before the 2019 fall session of Supreme Court hearings. Meaning October 1st 2019. My fallback is she is gone no later than March 2020.
Meaning DJT will appoint another Supreme Court Justice and that The Senate will be in solid Republican control. Thus DJT can go with a solid conservative, no need to listen to or consult with Chuckie and his Dems etc
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.