Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion Discuss national gun rights and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-21-2019, 5:24 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 8,781
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Thumbs up CA2: Libertarian Party of Erie County v. Cuomo (re NY CCW GMC/GC/PC requirements)

Quote:
U.S. Court Of Appeals Case Could Overturn State Pistol Permit Laws

The U.S.Court of Appeals is hearing oral arguments today from attorney James Ostrowski challenging the state’s pistol permit requirements.

The challenge contends the state pistol permit requirement is arbitrary and unconstitutional. The challenge is also supported by 2AWNY.COM Civil Rights Advocate Steve Felano. If the court agrees with Ostrowski, the challenge could overturn the state’s pistol permit laws.

<snip>

This, Ostrowski argues, is violated in that the pistol permit requires applicants to bear the burden of the “overly subjective nature of “good moral character,” “good cause,” and “proper cause” requirements.”
More at:
https://wnynewsnow.com/2019/02/20/u-...l-permit-laws/
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Last edited by Paladin; 02-21-2019 at 9:52 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 02-21-2019, 6:07 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 5,543
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Thumbs up

Tearing down unjust and unconstitutional statutes is necessary to insure freedom and liberty.

Libertarians actually living up to the definition of their cause is a refreshing change.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 02-21-2019, 6:31 PM
LVSox LVSox is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 21
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The good guys actually caught a pretty good panel here. Although Walker and Jacobs have upheld other restrictive statutes (and Walker has endorsed intermediate scrutiny) in Decastro and Kwong, they are two of the more conservative judges on the court, and each wrote a concurrence suggesting they are willing to draw a line. Whether it’s here, I have no idea.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 02-21-2019, 8:56 PM
LVSox LVSox is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 21
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I listened to the argument in this case, and it was a bit of a disaster. The panel was understandably concerned whether the one remaining plaintiff in the case (the others had moved out of state, died, or in the case of the Libertarian Party, voluntarily withdrawn) even had standing to bring these claims. That plaintiff apparently has been arrested dozens of times, and the state asserts his denial was not based on a failure to show good cause, but rather because of his lacking good moral character. And Plaintiff/Appellant's lawyer was not strong.

With that said, Judges Walker and Jacobs did show a clear interest in the pending SCOTUS case (NYSRPA), and whether the Supreme Court may issue guidance on whether intermediate scrutiny is appropriate fore Second Amendment cases, or specifically whether there is a core right to bear arms outside the home. And the state's lawyer expressed a willingness to have the Court hold the case until the Supreme Court's ruling. I'd guess that's what's going to happen at this point.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 03-08-2019, 10:00 AM
Saudade's Avatar
Saudade Saudade is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: Los Angeles County
Posts: 19
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Is this pistol permit a purchaser's/owner's permit or is it a carry permit? I knew NY was bad, but I didn't know it was bad to the point where you'd need to be of "moral character" to purchase or own a pistol permit.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 03-10-2019, 11:24 AM
rero360 rero360 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Pasadena
Posts: 3,831
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

In NY you can’t even touch a pistol at a gun store or gun show without first showing that you have a permit already.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 03-10-2019, 8:22 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 533
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rero360 View Post
In NY you can’t even touch a pistol at a gun store or gun show without first showing that you have a permit already.
Thus the antithesis of a right. You cannot exercise your 2A right at all without governmental permission. "Good moral character" excludes the cons and the crazies, but the "need" analysis can be used to exclude everyone else.

How do the permitting requirements survive the "no level of scrutiny" language of Heller for keeping a usable firearm in the home? Assuming the standing requirement is met, it is difficult to refute an argument that the right to keep, at the core of the 2A p[er Heller, must necessarily include a fundamental right to obtain a firearm.

Last edited by TruOil; 03-10-2019 at 8:35 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 03-10-2019, 9:28 PM
BryMan92 BryMan92 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 99
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
Thus the antithesis of a right. You cannot exercise your 2A right at all without governmental permission. "Good moral character" excludes the cons and the crazies, but the "need" analysis can be used to exclude everyone else.

How do the permitting requirements survive the "no level of scrutiny" language of Heller for keeping a usable firearm in the home? Assuming the standing requirement is met, it is difficult to refute an argument that the right to keep, at the core of the 2A p[er Heller, must necessarily include a fundamental right to obtain a firearm.
So you cannot go to shooting ranges, then?
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 03-11-2019, 9:48 AM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,448
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
Thus the antithesis of a right. You cannot exercise your 2A right at all without governmental permission. "Good moral character" excludes the cons and the crazies, but the "need" analysis can be used to exclude everyone else.

How do the permitting requirements survive the "no level of scrutiny" language of Heller for keeping a usable firearm in the home? Assuming the standing requirement is met, it is difficult to refute an argument that the right to keep, at the core of the 2A p[er Heller, must necessarily include a fundamental right to obtain a firearm.
As I understand the N.Y. license system only a carry permit is subject to the need standard. Target, hunting, premesis are essentially shall issue (albeit a PITA)
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 5:39 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
Calguns.net and The Calguns Foundation have no affiliation and are in no way related to each other.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.