Judge in NY rules Heller ruling doesn't affect states

[WhiteFeather]

I think some of you will find this interesting reading, using the Heller to impact LTCF permits, it also set case law, both good and bad for US

Judge in NY rules Heller ruling doesn't affect states'

The recent historic handgun ruling by the US Supreme Court in District of Columbia vs. Heller should have no impact on gun control and licensing provisions in New York state, an Onondaga County, NY, judge has concluded, according to The Syracuse Post Standard.

County Judge William Walsh raised the incorporation issue when he ruled that the June 26 Heller decision striking down the DC's strict handgun ban has no effect on the rights of individual states to establish their own firearm laws.
[B]Walsh made that finding in a written decision in which he reinstated a local man's pistol permit with limitations.[/B]

The Supreme Court may have recognized the right of individuals to possess lawful firearms in their homes, but it did not overrule the established precedent that the Second Amendment applies only to Congress and not to the states, Walsh wrote.

The Supreme Court's ruling would have an impact in the nation's capital because the District of Columbia is not a state and is under the jurisdiction of Congress, the judge decided. But it would not have an impact on states' rights to establish firearms laws, he concluded.

In the matter before Walsh, Daniel M. Groff, of Bridgeport, NY, had had a pistol permit since 1991 that allowed him the unrestricted right to carry a concealed handgun. The judge noted the permit had been revoked in May based on the filing of DWI and reckless driving charges against Groff in the town of Sullivan in Madison County.

With proof that Groff pleaded guilty to reckless driving and paid a $300 fine, Walsh in late July ordered his pistol permit reinstated. But the judge concluded the original decision allowing Groff to carry a concealed handgun had been a mistake.

An "unrestricted carry concealed permit" can be issued based on a showing a person has "a special need for self- protection distinguishable from that of the general community or of persons engaged in the same profession," Walsh noted.

Groff's original application indicated he needed the permit for "target shooting, personal protection, hunting" with no elaboration, the judge noted. He concluded target shooting and hunting did not warrant the issuance of a permit allowing Groff to carry a concealed handgun at all times.

According to The Post Standard reported, the judge further concluded the "unsubstantiated claim of the need for personal protection" was not sufficient to allow Groff to carry a concealed weapon.

Based on that and Groff's prior unblemished record, the judge agreed to reinstate his pistol permit but restricted it to possession on premises or for the purposes of hunting and target shooting.

Groff said recently he was unaware of the judge's decision about his pistol permit. He said he would await a copy of the ruling before deciding if he wanted to challenge the limitations.

Walsh wrote that the ability of New York residents to keep and bear arms is a privilege granted by statute. The state's constitution contains no such guarantee, he added.

"Thus, the issuance of a pistol license remains but a privilege subject to reasonable regulation under New York State law and the licensing officer is conferred with broad discretion in determining whether to issue, revoke, cancel or restrict such a license," Walsh wrote.

Tom King, president of the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, said Walsh is "probably right" in his interpretation of the Supreme Court ruling and its impact.

"That's the way it is," he said. The New GUN WEEK, August 1, 2008

[ChamberedRound]

I think some of you will find this interesting reading, using the Heller to impact LTCF permits, it also set case law, both good and bad for US

Is this just an opinion, or was is an actual ruling? If it's a ruling, it could be appealed and used as the next step, which is to incorporate the 2nd Amendment.

[LittleRedToyota]

i think, unfortunately, this judge is correct. SCOTUS failed to incorporate the 2nd amendment in heller.

another case will have to go before SCOTUS to settle that issue.

luckily, here in PA, the state constitution is just as strong (maybe even stronger) than the US constitution when it comes to protecting gun rights.

of course, if the state supreme court doesn't actually enforece the state constitution, then that doesn't really do us much good...

[truecrimson]

Tom King, president of the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, said Walsh is "probably right" in his interpretation of the Supreme Court ruling and its impact.

"That's the way it is," he said. The New GUN WEEK, August 1, 2008

You know, I seem to remember almost exactly the same thing being said by the English as they lost more and more of their rights.

And if New York thinks it can regulate the 2nd Amendment I guess they think they can restrict the other 9 as well.

[5711-Marine]

The Second Amendment Foundation is seeking to incorporate 2A in the fourteenth in the Chicago case. See their request for summary judgment here

[LittleRedToyota]

And if New York thinks it can regulate the 2nd Amendment I guess they think they can restrict the other 9 as well.

not really. other amendments in the bill of rights have been legally "incorporated" and made to apply to the states. so far, though, the 2nd amendment has not been.

it is a fact that, when the constitution and bill of rights were written, they applied only to the federal government, and not to states.

however, with the passage of the 14th amendment and subsequent supreme court cases citing it, certain portions of the bill of rights were "incorporated" into the 14th amendment and made to apply to the states as well as the federal government. however, so far, the 2nd has not been.

so, it is actually perfectly reasonable within the constructs of our current judicial system for NY to think they can ignore the 2nd amendment, but not the first.

i do not agree with this process. to me, either the entire bill of rights is incorporated by the 14th amendment or none of it is. but, that's not the view taken by our legal system.

see here for more information regarding incorporation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorpo...Bill_of_Rights)

[ChamberedRound]

SCOTUS failed to incorporate the 2nd amendment in heller.

This is a matter of symantics, so take it FWIW.

The SCotUS didn't FAIL to incorporate the 2nd, they COULDN'T incorporate the 2nd due to the nature of the case, i.e. Heller was appealing a DC law, not a state law. The reason why 2A advocates loved Heller v DC was because it took place in DC; the SCotUS was able to address the question of individual vs collective interpretation WITHOUT having to worry about incorporation.

This fight will be fought in baby steps, and Heller was the first one. The next logical step is to bring a case before them which would give them an opportunity to address the 2A's incorporation.

[LittleRedToyota]

This is a matter of symantics, so take it FWIW.

The SCotUS didn't FAIL to incorporate the 2nd, they COULDN'T incorporate the 2nd due to the nature of the case, i.e. Heller was appealing a DC law, not a state law.

you are correct, of course. and this is an important point. my choice of words was poor.

This fight will be fought in baby steps. The next logical step is to bring a case before them which would give them an opportunity to address the 2A's incorporation.

yep. and then some cases to define what is are "reasonable" restrictions vs. unreasonable restrictions.

(of course, since the 2nd says "shall not be infringed" and not "shall not be unreasonably infringed", the issue of "reasonableness" shouldn't even come up...all restrictions--whether "reasonable" or not--are, by definition, violations of the 2nd amendment, but we live in a world where words don't really have any meaning, so...)

[PocketProtector]

Yep...as stated formerly, SCOTUS copped out.

[Lysander]

Yep...as stated formerly, SCOTUS copped out.

Howso?

When dealing with a DC Ordinance, the USSC cannot rule on Incorporation as it pertains to the several states, (1) because that is not an issue before the Court and (2) because, in dealing with the DC Ordinance, it needs to be recognized that DC is not a state, but Federal Territory, and thus stands in a different relationship to the Constitution of the United States than, say, Pennsylvania does.

The USSC could not have dropped the ball, because the ball wasn't theirs to begin with.