Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
nyc has been using a residence pistol permit instead of the old target hunting permit they use in other parts of the state for civilians who want a permit ..
technically you cannot be out of the residence with a firearm since nys law forbids it . but a handwritten permission slip signed by our commissioner says you can go off premise to shoot at a nyc approved rang or hunt in an approved area with a hunting license .
the old target hunting permit was actually a restricted carry permit and let you travel anywhere to shoot .
so the new york state rifle and pistol association brought suite because what nyc did is restrict travel which is protected under federal law .
any way i found the up shot to the case which saw the courts this year and basically the citizens got screwed again by the judges view .
just so you know we have no ranges in nyc where you can go shoot without spending hundreds of dollars to join . unlike many ranges outside the city where you pay a daily fee with no membersship.
nassau county range said they are still recognizing nyc permits only they charge 22 bucks an hour for a city resident compared to 3.50 for seniors in nassau county or 10 bucks for a resident .
From the New York Law Journal:
New York City's pistol permit law does not infringe on gun owners' Second Amendment rights by restricting the transport of the guns to and from practice ranges approved by the city, a federal judge ruled Tuesday.
Southern District Judge Robert Sweet (See Profile) also rejected challenges to the permit law on other grounds, such as violations of permit holders' First Amendment rights or their right to travel.
Sweet found plaintiffs in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York, 13-cv-2115, failed to show how the restrictions the city imposes on some 40,000 handgun permit holders impinge on their constitutional rights.
Chiefly, the state Rifle & Pistol Association contended that the city's resident permit system, as embodied in 38 Rules of the City of New York §5-23, violates the Second Amendment because it requires that holders may only transport their weapons—unloaded, in a carrying case—to ranges within New York City approved by the New York Police Department if they want to practice their proficiency.
Penal Law and other statutes prevent them from carrying their guns to practice ranges or shooting competitions outside the city or, in the case of plaintiff Romolo Colantone, to a second family home in rural Hancock, in upstate Delaware County.
Sweet said the restrictions do not threaten the "core" of the Second Amendment or compromise the right to bear arms.
"The rule does not prevent or prohibit anyone from engaging in target practice or shooting competitions, rather it prohibits transporting the handgun to a range not approved by the city," Sweet wrote from Manhattan.
The plaintiffs argued that while the NYPD has approved eight practice ranges, and that seven are open to the public, the ranges represent an unlawful restriction on their ability to practice shooting because people must pay a charge to belong to what are private clubs. The city countered that the practice ranges are not private and are open to the public generally.
Even if that were true, Sweet wrote, it would not validate the plaintiffs' contention of a Second Amendment violation because he said nothing in 39 RCNY §5-23 prohibits gun ranges from operating in New York City.
"The fact that few, or even no, such ranges exist is not tantamount to a ban; the number of firing ranges open to the public is a function of the market, and not the challenged rule," he wrote.
He called the restrictions on the transport of permitted handguns to only city-approved ranges a "regulatory measure" that does not strike at the heart of a Second Amendment right.
"The rule 'merely regulate[s] rather than restrict[s]' the right to possess a firearm in the home and is a minimal, or at most, modest burden on the right," the judge wrote, quoting a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Ezell v. City of Chicago, 651 F.3d 684 (2011).
Sweet said nothing in the city's permitting law prevents Colantone from seeking a pistol permit in Delaware County. He noted that the Second Circuit's 2013 ruling in Osterweil v. Bartlett, 706 F.3d 139, specifically allowed part-time residents of a county in New York to seek a local handgun permit even if their full-time residence is outside the county (NYLJ, Oct. 16, 2013).
"The Premises Residence license is specific to the New York City residence and the firearms listed on the license must be connected to the license," Sweet said. "Those requirements do not generate a constitutional issue."
Sweet also rejected the plaintiff's First Amendment claims by restricting where they can practice their shooting.
"Plaintiffs have not alleged how engaging in target practice and competitive shooting outside of New York City constitutes expressive matter or free association protected by the First Amendment," the judge wrote.
As to a violation of the plaintiffs' right to travel, the judge said no precedents had been pointed out to him establishing that New York City must allow its permit holders to transport their restricted firearms to other states, or to other communities within New York state.
"Limiting restricted Premises Residence licensees to keep their firearms in their residences, or to and from an authorized small arms range, does not impede on plaintiffs' right to travel," Sweet wrote.
Two other New York City individual permit holders, Efrain Alvarez and Jose Anthony Irizarry, sued along with Colantone and the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, an Albany-based pro-Second Amendment rights group. Goldberg Segalla partners Brian Stapleton in White Plains, Christopher Bopst and Matthew Lerner in Buffalo and Frank Ciano in Albany represented the rifle and pistol group and the other plaintiffs.
The association has also been seeking, so far unsuccessfully, to have Gov. Andrew Cuomo's SAFE Act invalidated in a federal court action, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Cuomo, 13-cv-291 (NYLJ, Jan. 2, 2014).
Assistant corporation counsels Michelle Goldberg-Cahn, Sheryl Neufeld and Benjamin Hillengas represented New York City.
"These rules are in place to protect the public and we are pleased the city prevailed here," Goldberg-Cahn said in a statement. "We are confident that the city's rules balance the constitutional rights of individuals with our responsibility to safeguard the public."
We're at the point in this country where I mostly advise friends and family to outright ignore gun laws such as NY has. They are blatantly unconstitutional, no matter what the ultra-liberal NY-area judges say. Just look at the mental-hoops this judge went through to explain why NYC's outlandishly onerous gun laws - none of which violent criminals follow mind you - are somehow "acceptable" under the 2nd Amendment which clearly states "shall not be infringed."
F this tyrant, all those before him, and his cronies among NY's democrat overlords. The day will come when patriots will finally say "enough". Hopefully that time is nigh.
Until these laws are overturned, you can still end up spending years in jail because of them.
In point of fact, this needs to end up with the Supremes. Likely this will case be appealed up into the Circuit level. The Second Circuit judges are likely nothing but a bunch of worthless liberal sycophants who will rubber stamp the district court decision. But hopefully there will be a conflicting decision out of one of the other circuits, and it will force the Supremes to end the conflict. Given the results with Heller and McDonald, that decision would likely go the correct way, essentially gutting all of oppressive gun laws in NYC/NYS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airborneguy
We're at the point in this country where I mostly advise friends and family to outright ignore gun laws such as NY has. They are blatantly unconstitutional, no matter what the ultra-liberal NY-area judges say. Just look at the mental-hoops this judge went through to explain why NYC's outlandishly onerous gun laws - none of which violent criminals follow mind you - are somehow "acceptable" under the 2nd Amendment which clearly states "shall not be infringed."
F this tyrant, all those before him, and his cronies among NY's democrat overlords. The day will come when patriots will finally say "enough". Hopefully that time is nigh.
Forget not being able to carry. Look at the above case! You guys can't even legally shoot outside of the city. NYC's system is absolutely the definition of major infringements on the 2nd Amendment.
we can shoot outside of the city but you are counting on the range's discretion to accept the fact that while a residence permit in state law says you can't be off the premise the police commissioner gave you a permission slip to do so outside his city's jurisdiction .
so as an example nassau county range accepts nyc licences , we were there this week , so does coyne range in yonkers , clearwater range in levitown does not .
nah , it means you can wear tank tops and sleeveless shirts .
actually the meaning according to the courts is you have a right to own a firearm but the locality's have the right to mold just what you can do with it or where you can go with it and how to fit the location ..
for years nyc had the target and hunting permit . it was a full carry permit but they forced you to check a box that said the reason you want it is just for target and hunting . if you checked any other reason you would not get a permit issued .
so as per your own request they stamped it restricted to target and hunting .
the most recent definition from the Chicago case , Heller and McDonald was that the court ruled only that government may not ban the possession of handguns by civilians in their homes.
Last edited by mathjak107; 10-12-2015 at 03:02 PM..
It really is a pity that people who cannot read are appointed to the judiciary:
I could read and understand this sentence when I was 6.
Does not "bear arms" mean PRECISELY to carry them from one place to another?
Kefir, I have always appreciated your understanding of the 2nd. Thank you.
A common retort of the Anti's is "then we can have nuclear bombs too right?" No, mot even the most staunch pro-gun citizens believe that nonsense. "Bear arms" clearly means that which can be carried by a person, ie, firearms. As you said, even a 6 year old can understand that. Every single anti-gun court case has in common the fact that the judge plays mental gymnastics to explain why "shall not be infringed" still apparently allows obvious and onerous infringements.
they skirt everything by saying the modifications by locality's do not restrict , they regulate .
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
