Having said that, Wesley concluded that intermediate scrutiny is the appropriate standard, triggering an analysis of whether the regulation furthers the compelling government interests of public safety and crime prevention—as argued by the state and Westchester County.
"The only question then is whether the proper cause requirement is substantially related to these interests," Wesley said. "We conclude that it is."
Kachalsky said yesterday that the plaintiffs intend to seek a petition for a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court.
"I'm not surprised—I've never seen the Second Circuit come out with a bold decision," Kachalsky said. "It's a ridiculous interpretation of the Second Amendment."
He added, "Nowhere in the Second Amendment does it mention the word 'home.' To say that you have the right to defend yourself in your home and nowhere else is just a misrepresentation of the Second Amendment as written by the Founding Fathers."
Attorney General Eric Schneiderman issued a statement praising the decision, saying, "This means that our state's guns laws are protected and vigorously enforced."
Schneiderman called it a "victory" for state law, the U.S. Constitution and "families across New York who are rightly concerned about the scourge of gun violence that all too often plagues our communities."
Assistant Solicitor General Simon Heller argued for the state.
Assistant County Attorney Thomas Gardiner argued for Westchester County.
The plaintiffs were represented by Alan Gura of Gura & Possessky in Alexandria, Va.
@|Mark Hamblett can be contacted at mhamblett@alm.com.
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