Fellow plaintiff Eric Detmer said he had shown proper cause because he was a federal law enforcement officer with the U.S. Coast Guard. Christina Nikolov tried to show a special need for self-protection by asserting that, as a transgender female, she was more likely to be the victim of violence.
The two remaining plaintiffs simply asserted they were citizens in good standing in their community and gainfully employed.
Before Seibel, the plaintiffs cited District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), where the U.S. Supreme Court said a Washington, D.C., law banning handguns in the home violated the Second Amendment. The amendment, the court said, codifies a pre-existing "individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation."
Plaintiffs in the New York case argued that Heller stood for the principle that the Second Amendment guarantees their right to possess and carry guns in public.
Westchester County and New York state countered that Heller limits the right to bear arms to self-defense in the home.
But on the appeal from Seibel's grant of summary judgment, Wesley said that "Heller provides no categorical answer in this case."
"What we know" from decisions following Heller, he said, is that "Second Amendment guarantees are at their zenith within the home."
"What we do not know," he said, "is the scope of that right beyond the home and the standards for determining when and how the right can be regulated by a government."
Wesley said New York's statute should be subjected to "some form of heightened scrutiny" because it "places substantial limits in the ability of law-abiding citizens to possess firearms for self-defense in public."
Citing Heller, Wesley said, "We believe state regulation of the use of firearms in public was 'enshrined with[in] the scope' of the Second Amendment when it was adopted."
Subscribe to New York Law Journal
-
Carmen
If the NY ruling doesn't violate the second amendment, it sure does violate the "equal protection clause".
What criminal has to abide by this law?
Only citizens who want to protect themselves, must apply.
I'd like to see a challenge based on the 4th.
-
Christopher J Hoffman
Rest assured the fat lady has not yet sung. Would the Supreme Court dare say that the Second Amendment was codified to protect the right of indoor militias? Unlikely, even given its current makeup. Quite obviously, the use of firearms for whatever lawful purpose is primarily an outdoor activity.
The government's interest in public safety cannot reasonably extend to licensed, screened, trained individuals whose actual safety record and lack of criminal behavior should earn the envy of the modern world.
Indeed, if the crime rate of weapon permit holders could be magically superimposed on the rest of this country, we might mistakenly think we woke up in Switzerland, which has a microscopically low rate of violence and crime. Yet Swiss citizens typically store government issued machine guns and a caches of ammunition in their homes, and often transport them to and from firing ranges slung over their backs on bicycles. No one even blinks, let alone runs for cover.
Nowhere in this case, nor in any similar lower court cases denying of the right to self-defense, has any meaningful analysis of the actual public safety risk been conducted. The idea that licensed, trained individuals, screened for prohibitive factors, present a prima facia threat to public safety has been left unchallenged. In the absence of such an inquiry, the foundation of such decisions is completely hollow.
Indeed, the several credible studies in existence indicate that carry licensing schemes have a significant negative affect on crime rates, including gun crime, rape, and assault.
In the worst-cases, licensed gun-toters had no effect on crime rates one way or the other.
However counter-intuitive the notion that armed, law-abiding citizen make us safer, it must be fully examined before any strong government interest in public safety can be credibly asserted.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Kleck http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lott
Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.
Reader Comments