Sucks that this is a loss, but it’s a loss in New York, it would be stupid not to appeal it IMHO.
A pro-gun group’s lawsuit seeking to undermine the city’s strict gun control laws has been shot down by a Manhattan Federal Court judge.
The NRA-affiliated New York State Pistol and Rifle Association sued the city in 2013, arguing that laws limiting certain licensed handgun owners to carrying their unloaded weapons directly to or from their homes and shooting ranges infringed on their Second Amendment rights.
Judge Robert Sweet said he wasn’t buying it last week in a 43-page ruling.
“These regulations are reasonable and result from the substantial government interest in public safety,” Sweet wrote, citing previous rulings that “outside the home, firearms safety interests often outweigh individual interests in self-defense.”
The gun group had argued the small number of shooting ranges — only eight in the city — amounted to a gun ban. Sweet countered that the paucity of gun ranges was simply the free market at work.
First up, very interesting that the regulations were cited as “Reasonable” when NYC has probably some of the toughest gun regulations in the country, given that now in DC and Chicago are now issuing carry permits…tho DC the jury is still out, and the majority of the nation both A) has radically less restrictive gun laws, and B) is much safer than NYC.
Also it COULD be argued that the NYC “Stop-and-Frisk” policy also made the public safer. That didn’t matter, since it is illegal to do it! Sorry, you don’t get to violate ANY of the Bill of Rights because it makes you FEEL safer. And just like Stop-and-Frisk, these violations even at their most draconian didn’t actually make the public safer.
Also I like the citation of “Free Market” when opening a gun range is anything but. The amount of hoops you need to jump through to start a range in NYC is nearly impossible.
As I said above, I hope it gets appealed, as it’s a terrible law, and I’m not surprised that a Judge appointed by such a broken system ruled this way.
Major amount of circular reasoning in the judgement.
Can’t carry a firearm because their aren’t many gun ranges; but without people being able to easily carry their firearm few of them will go to a range.
These regulations are reasonable and result from the substantial government interest in public safety,” Sweet wrote, citing previous rulings that “outside the home, firearms safety interests often outweigh individual interests in self-defense.”
I wonder if that is the case; why do legislators and judges often allow special exceptions for themselves — I know in Texas, Judges are on the same level as law enforcement officers regarding the ability to carry in public — especially in places we can’t. Wonder if the good judge has one of the few carry permits in NYC.
Never-mind that CCW *is* legal in NYC you’ve just got to have friends in the Mayor’s office or the NYPD.
But no, specifically empowering the police to deny permits to otherwise qualified citizens (background checks, training) makes *total* sense.
Course the implication is that it doesn’t hurt public safety if the rich can carry guns, but if the poor are allowed to legally do it….