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

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-49 next last
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]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-49 next last

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