PDA

View Full Version : U.S. District Court upholds unconstitutional NYC gun law



Little-Acorn
07-07-2008, 01:29 PM
In its decision in DC v. Heller, the Supreme Court stated specifically that its ruling applied only to the Washington DC gun ban. But it made clear that it considered the right to own and carry a gun inside your own home, part of the right protected by the 2nd amendment which could not be restricted or taken away.

Now the Federal District Court in New York City has upheld a law in that city by which a disabled veteran's right to own a gun in his own home for self-defense, was taken away. This is probably one of many cases lining up for Supreme Court fights in the wake of the Heller decision.

There are many such gun bans in cities other than DC. They all comprise the huge amount of trash than must be disposed of, now that the Heller case has shown how the Court views the 2nd amendment.

-----------------------------------------

http://www.nysun.com/new-york/new-york-moves-to-defend-gun-law/81209/

New York Moves To Defend Gun Law

By JOSEPH GOLDSTEIN, Staff Reporter of the Sun
July 3, 2008

In a sign that federal courts here in New York will defend New York City's restrictive gun regulations, a judge is allowing the city to strip a disabled Vietnam War veteran of his gun license.

The decision, handed down this week, is likely the first court ruling to deal with New York's gun-permitting scheme since the Supreme Court declared that the Second Amendment gives citizens an individual right to keep a gun at home for self-defense.

The veteran who lost his gun license, Dominick DiNapoli, said the Supreme Court's decision ought to require that he gets back his gun permit.

"Who needs a gun more than someone like me, who is disabled and can't physically defend his home?" Mr. DiNapoli said in an interview.

The court decision, by Judge William Pauley III of U.S. District Court in Manhattan, does not mention the Second Amendment and defers entirely to the New York City Police Department's permitting process. New York's gun-licensing system is expected to come under challenge soon on allegations that it restricts law-abiding citizens from keeping guns at home for self-defense.

In 1970, police first issued Mr. DiNapoli, then a deer hunter, a license for a shotgun or rifle. In 2002, the department revoked it, citing both a brief period during which Mr. DiNapoli was homeless and criminal charges that had been filed against him and subsequently dropped, Judge Pauley wrote in the decision.

During the time Mr. DiNapoli was homeless — he was evicted from his apartment in 2001 — and failed to inform the police department of a change of address, as is required of permitted gun owners, Judge Pauley noted.

The criminal charges against Mr. DiNapoli, filed in 2000, alleged that he had sent a threatening letter to employees of the federal Department of Agriculture regarding his difficulties in obtaining food stamps. Federal prosecutors subsequently dropped the charges in 2004.

Mr. DiNapoli said he never threatened federal employees. He said that he had written to request food stamps and explain that he was having difficulty paying rent, which had, in turn, led to a feud with his landlord. Mr. DiNapoli said he had written that he feared the feud would turn violent and that he might need to use his guns in self-defense.

In the end, the police department had decided that the Mr. DiNapoli's actions "indicated a lack of good moral character for firearms possession," Judge Pauley wrote.

Mr. DiNapoli's suit argued that the police department places illegal administrative obstacles between people and firearm licenses, by requiring repeated visits to One Police Plaza to submit paperwork or attend hearings and interviews.

Mr. DiNapoli's suit claims that his disabilities — he suffers from joint disease, back trouble, and vertigo — render him unable to travel to One Police Plaza from his home in the Bronx to attend the hearings relating to his case.

In court papers, Mr. DiNapoli explains his complaint by quoting directly from the Declaration of Independence. He accuses the police department of holding inconvenient hearings "for the sole purpose of fatiguing" people "into compliance," one of the grievances listed against King George III. Mr. DiNapoli is a former UPS employee and self-employed woodworker, he said.

eighballsidepocket
07-08-2008, 12:12 PM
Anti-gun folks use the same old method used by the wacko environmental element. Fight in court and attempt to drain or deplete monetary backing of counsel for reversing the gun bands.

There is so much money and strong lobbies for the anti-gun element, that they will fight their losing battle anywhere, anytime, rather than admitt defeat. It is an out and out defiance of the Supreme Court rendition on
2nd amendment rights.

The Sierra Club, Earth First, Green Peace all spend millions with stalling tactics in courts to stop proponents of safe, clean nuclear power. If they can keep building permit processes in limbo long enough, they hope to bankrupt those that are financing Nuclear power plants.

So it goes with the anti-gun lobby. They want to drain the coffers of the NRA, and any entity that challenges current unconstitutional gun bans.

Hopefully if a few of these Federal Court rulings are challenged in the S.C. and overturned, their will be a domino effect, and we can get on with normal American life and liberty.

actsnoblemartin
07-08-2008, 12:17 PM
can the nazi court be contacted, i'd like to tell them zeig heil faggots

:finger3:

Hobbit
07-08-2008, 02:15 PM
New York anti-gun advocates are the worst, and the judges are willing conspirators. Right now, there's a case in court where people will come here to Georgia to buy guns, mostly at gun shows, because it's too much of a pain to buy a gun in New York. A small number of these people are criminals who, as yet, haven't been caught and buy the guns to commit crimes. Also, some people's guns get stolen and wind up in the hands of criminals, so now, people in New York are trying to sue the Georgia gun vendors...in New York. The act in question took place entirely in Georgia, meaning New York has absolutely no jurisdiction, which they know. In Georgia, everything the gun vendors did is perfectly legal and there are no grounds to sue, which they also know. What they're doing is stalling forever in New York, forcing the gun vendors to waste time on trips to New York while they could be money and further wasting money on expensive New York attorneys to try to cut through the red tape long enough to get a jurisdictional hearing. Fortunately, they're getting support from some private citizens' groups, though I think they SHOULD be getting support from the Georgia state government. If I was the attorney general, I'd show up in New York all red-faced with a whole stack of papers announcing my intention to bludgeon everyone involved to the fullest extent of the law for blatant legal misconduct.