New Yorker loses challenge re licensing

[wewo]

A Kings County (Brooklyn, NY) Judge denied a Defendant's motion to dismiss a possession of handgun charge. The defendant claimed he had a right to bear arms outside his home (he was in a Chinese restaurant), but New York's licensing requirements unconstitutionally denied him a right to carry. The Court relied on the dicta in Heller that reasonable restrictions still apply. Copy of decision attached from the NYLJ (new York LAw Journal) 7/22/08.

[mikepro8]

Ah yes.... "reasonable."

Truly subjective, what is reasonable for one person may seem completely insane to another.

"Reasonable" rent in NYC is into the thousands of dollars per month. In Mt. Carmel, PA you can buy a house for what some people in NYC pay for rent in 8 months. What's reasonable???

[PocketProtector]

The SCOTUS/Heller decision was a total cop out and I predict not much will change. They left huge gray areas in place, most likely to appease the SCOTUS dissenters.

[Pa.Bill]

There are many, or there was, different pistol licensing in NYC.
I had one for over 20years. There is Residence, Business, Employment, Target/Hunting, CCW. A person must show true cause for the permit.
Actually, owning a restaurant, chinese or otherwise, in a high crime area
is a cause. But they were more like 'behind the coiunter type then a personal carry.
But that was long ago and I'm sure Mr. Bloomburg has put his anti-gun fingers into the situation.

~HAPPY LIVING IN PA.~
Bill----------------------------->

[pex]

Originally Posted by wewo

A Kings County (Brooklyn, NY) Judge denied a Defendant's motion to dismiss a possession of handgun charge. The defendant claimed he had a right to bear arms outside his home (he was in a Chinese restaurant), but New York's licensing requirements unconstitutionally denied him a right to carry. The Court relied on the dicta in Heller that reasonable restrictions still apply. Copy of decision attached from the NYLJ (new York LAw Journal) 7/22/08.

I really that's a summation of the opinion/order, but wouldn't that be really shitty if they just took the SCOTUS dicta and tried to apply that as law?

Isn't the idea of court that they go through the precedent and show how they built up to the notion that something was or was not okay? Sweeping all that away with a "Scalia decided to make a point that was not pertinent to the issue at hand to 'balance' the fact he was kinda-sorta upholding the second amendment" and using that as a basis of law...is disgusting.

[Yellowfin]

As I always say, May Issue is the new Separate But Equal. That is its effect and its intention.