Supreme Court Gun Decision Won't Affect NYC

[buster2209]

http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/polit...-97323549.html

Supreme Court Gun Decision Won't Affect NYC

New York City gun restrictions should remain unchanged
By JILLIAN SCHARR

Updated 3:16 PM EDT, Mon, Jun 28, 2010

The Supreme Court's decision that states cannot ban citizens from possessing firearms will likely not affect New York City, officials and experts said.

In a 5-4 decision today, the Supreme Court ruled that the city of Chicago's handgun ban was unconstitutional -- a big victory for supporters of gun rights. But New York City imposes gun restrictions, which the decision, McDonald v City of Chicago, IL, supports.

The Court’s decision today shows "we can work to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists while at the same time respecting the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens," said Mayor Michael Bloomberg in a statement. "I will continue to collaborate with mayors across the country to pursue common-sense, constitutional approaches to protecting public safety.”

Jackie Hilly, Executive Director of New Yorkers Against Gun Violence, told NBCNewYork she's pleased with the decision.

"I think it affirms New York law," Hilly said. "All the other amendments have reasonable restrictions on them. So I actually really like the Heller decision and the McDonald decision because they put the Second Amendment in the context of all the other amendments...people from the gun lobby like to promote the idea that you have an absolute or god-given right to possess a gun. That's clearly not true; your right can be restricted."

The McDonald decision follows a 2008 case, District of Columbia v Heller, in which the Supreme Court declared that a handgun ban in Washington D.C. was also unconstitutional.

Because Washington D.C. is under federal and not state jurisdiction, it was immediately clear whether state laws could restrict the right to bear arms as outlined in the Second Amendment.

In its decision today the Supreme Court pointed to the Fourteenth Amendment, which states: "no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."

The Fourteenth Amendment, signed into law in 1869, ended a long-standing debate over the superiority of federal or state law, which was one of the causes of the Civil War. Confederate states had declared that state laws should be equal to or supersede federal law.

The Fourteenth Amendment nullified southern states' post-Civil War laws that restricted African Americans' civil liberties, declaring that state law could not limit or contradict federally-declared rights and privileges.

[God's Country]

I'm not the least surprised because this case does nothing (as with Heller)
to diminish virtual gun bans.

[Neo31rex31]

If it can be restricted......am i incorrect for thinking that it isn't actually being treated as a right.....and is thus unconstitutional....

[PocketProtector]

I'm not the least surprised because this case does nothing (as with Heller)
to diminish virtual gun bans.

Yep although 5 Justices didn't vote against the Constitution, but as you stated, same as Heller, no balls to close the door for good. Another spineless decision by spineless individuals.

It disgusts me that it takes these Constitutional experts (sic) to see nuances in this:

A 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

And how many times has this been before the SCOTUS ??? Ref'ingdiculous

It's just a political football to keep the subjects polarized.

[Tootie]

Wasn't it those "restrictions" that prompted the McDonald case in the first place and what the Supreme has now ruled against?

[ChamberedRound]

I'm not the least surprised because this case does nothing (as with Heller)
to diminish virtual gun bans.

If it can be restricted......am i incorrect for thinking that it isn't actually being treated as a right.....and is thus unconstitutional....

Yep although 5 Justices didn't vote against the Constitution, but as you stated, same as Heller, no balls to close the door for good. Another spineless decision by spineless individuals.

It disgusts me that it takes these Constitutional experts (sic) to see nuances in this:

A 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

And how many times has this been before the SCOTUS ??? Ref'ingdiculous

It's just a political football to keep the subjects polarized.

Wasn't it those "restrictions" that prompted the McDonald case in the first place and what the Supreme has now ruled against?

While the justices stated that regulation is allowed, they didn't detail what was meant by such so-called "reasonable restrictions". This question will be left to future cases.

However, I am in agreement with Tootie on this one. Many here are concerned that "reasonable restrictions" could legislate the right out of the reach of the average citizen. However, if I were a lawyer, I would argue that any legislation that did so is an effective ban on the right to keep or bear, and is therefore far from "reasonable". In fact, I believe Dick Heller is still litigating against DC because their new "changed" laws do exactly this.

The liberal spin doctors are trying like hell to make this decision look good for them, but it isn't. I think NYC's Sullivan Law is in serious trouble, because as it stands it's an effective ban. Not only that, but it also highlights the law's partiality. Constitutional rights are supposed to be IMPARTIAL. IMHO, not only will laws which essentially create a ban with their process be in danger, but so will any "May Issue" laws which are not impartial in their design. To me, this puts a few states' carry license laws (like NJ's) in trouble as well.

Just my $0.02.

[LittleRedToyota]

Wasn't it those "restrictions" that prompted the McDonald case in the first place and what the Supreme has now ruled against?

no. chicago had a complete handgun ban. NYC does not.

SCOTUS did not rule against anything other than complete handgun bans (and that was actually from heller...they didn't even rule that in mcdonald...though you get to the same place because mcdonald applies heller to the states).

we are going to have to wait for another case to see which, if any, of NYCs restrictions get shot down.

most (probably all) of them they *should* be shot down...but this is the same court that just strongly reaffirmed (in mcdonald) its refusal to acknowledge that half of the 14th amendment even exists--and refused to revisit one of the worst, most intellectually dishonest decisions (slaughterhouse) in this history of SCOTUS.

many of the same justices who decided gonzalez vs. raich (another one of the worst decisions in the history of the court...and one which reaffirmed possibly the worst and most intellectually dishonest decision in the history of SCOTUS--namely, wickard v. filburn) and kelo v. new london are still on the court.

you have to understand that we are dealing with an extreme level of intellectual dishonesty, so you can throw *should* out the window...what will happen and what intellectually honest, rational analysis demands happen will likely be two different things unfortunately.

[Yellowfin]

Yep although 5 Justices didn't vote against the Constitution, but as you stated, same as Heller, no balls to close the door for good. Another spineless decision by spineless individuals.

It's just a political football to keep the subjects polarized.

Quite the contrary. It does plenty enough to invalidate all kinds of prior rulings by Circuit courts, namely the 2nd, 4th, 7th, and 9th, which have kept NY, NJ, MD, IL, and CA gun laws in place. All of those hinged on the 2nd Amendment not being an individual right and not applying to the states--ENTIRELY. That's all they had to say so that's all they did say. Bach v. Pataki et al. for NY, Burton v. Sills in NJ, Scherr v. Handgun Permit Review Board in MD, and Hickman v. Block in CA all uphold the nastiest gun laws purely by lack of Heller and McDonald, and now those are all void. That's Shall Issue LCTF/CCW in the major populated May Issue States, thus opening up gun ownership to a major chunk of the US population that previously had none.

Further, if those issues absolutely have to be fought all the way up to SCOTUS, it's actually an advantage for us because then we get not just one SCOTUS ruling in our favor but many more. The effect of having more cases on our favor nails the door shut tighter than just having one simple ruling to be overturned in the future---it's darn near impossible to overturn say 4 to 8 of them, AND it's a hell of a lot harder at the state and district level to argue against more cases of higher up precedent in our favor. We've been shut down as long as we have because of the combination of Cruikshank, Presser, Miller, and Carolene: that had us on a losing streak for over 100 years. Now that the first two are overturned more or less entirely, and the stinging parts of the last two curbed considerably, plus two wins in our favor, the tables are turned.

Now it's a matter of the followup suits. Sykes v. McGinness in CA is underway, and Peña v. Cid will be useful in overturning stuff like AWB's in various states. Palmer v. DC will now move along as well, possibly giving us 50 state right to carry b/c of interplay with McDonald which makes any rights in DC rights applicable everywhere.

Feel better now?

[MDJschool]

Jackie Hilly, Executive Director of New Yorkers Against Gun Violence: "people from the gun lobby like to promote the idea that you have an absolute or god-given right to possess a gun"
JESUS: "[I]f you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one."

JILLIAN SCHARR: "In its decision today the Supreme Court pointed to the Fourteenth Amendment, which states: "no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."
Justice Alito: "For many decades, the question of the rights protected bythe Fourteenth Amendment against state infringement has been analyzed under the Due Process Clause of that Amendment and not under the Privileges or Immunities Clause. We therefore decline to disturb the Slaughter-House holding."

While the justices stated that regulation is allowed, they didn't detail what was meant by such so-called "reasonable restrictions".

The court didn't need to find that there's allowance for all these gun control laws and therefore they are meaningless dicta on which lower should not rely. The troubling part is that on several 1-3 page opinions in district and circuit courts following Heller, it was exactly and only those types of excerpts the courts copied and pasted into their opinions to dismiss and deny defendants' petitions, and we can expect the same following McDonald.

Quite the contrary. It does plenty enough to invalidate all kinds of prior rulings by Circuit courts, namely the 2nd, 4th, 7th, and 9th, which have kept NY, NJ, MD, IL, and CA gun laws in place. All of those hinged on the 2nd Amendment not being an individual right and not applying to the states--ENTIRELY. That's all they had to say so that's all they did say.

I've been waiting for Rybar to die off as well as another case, which I dont recall whether it is federal or PA, that says as a major part of reaching their holding that the 2A isn't an individual right.

[GHF]

Jackie Hilly, Executive Director of New Yorkers Against Gun Violence, told NBCNewYork she's pleased with the decision.

"I think it affirms New York law," Hilly said. "All the other amendments have reasonable restrictions on them. So I actually really like the Heller decision and the McDonald decision because they put the Second Amendment in the context of all the other amendments...people from the gun lobby like to promote the idea that you have an absolute or god-given right to possess a gun. That's clearly not true; your right can be restricted."

Making the keeping and bearing of a weapon by an Individual as a Fundimental Right brings about what is called Strict Scrutiny. This approach, used in the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendment cases after incorporation under the 14th, involves the following, as posted on Wilpedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny):

To pass strict scrutiny, the law or policy must satisfy three prongs:

First, it must be justified by a compelling governmental interest. While the Courts have never brightly defined how to determine if an interest is compelling, the concept generally refers to something necessary or crucial, as opposed to something merely preferred. Examples include national security, preserving the lives of multiple individuals, and not violating explicit constitutional protections.

Second, the law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest. If the government action encompasses too much (overbroad) or fails to address essential aspects of the compelling interest (under-inclusive), then the rule is not considered narrowly tailored.

Finally, the law or policy must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest. More accurately, there cannot be a less restrictive way to effectively achieve the compelling government interest, but the test will not fail just because there is another method that is equally the least restrictive. Some legal scholars consider this 'least restrictive means' requirement part of being narrowly tailored, though the Court generally evaluates it as a separate prong.

The fact that there is no objective standard in NYC kills Sullivan, it is dead, because of the hoops for hoops sake approach, and the arbitrary results. Bloomy knows this.