Al Norris
Spud Head
A bit of movement in Kwong v. Bloomberg (NYC case to challenge the exhorbitant fees for handgun possession in the home). The Docket is here.
You should see (or see shortly), the original complaint (#1), the Cities answer (#11), the States answer (#12) and the MSJ for the Plaintiff (#14). What follows is the TOC from the MSJ, just so you can get a feel for the issues and how the plaintiffs are attacking the licensing fees of NYC.
LAWS AT ISSUE
The opening paragraph sums it up quite nicely:
As we all should know, Mayor Bloomberg attempted to get the fees realigned after the decision in McDonald but the City Council refused. So now we have this case.
The MSJ is written very well and attacks not only the cities fees, but through the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th, the States exemption of the City to its otherwise "reasonable" fee structure.
It will be interesting to see how the responses go.
You should see (or see shortly), the original complaint (#1), the Cities answer (#11), the States answer (#12) and the MSJ for the Plaintiff (#14). What follows is the TOC from the MSJ, just so you can get a feel for the issues and how the plaintiffs are attacking the licensing fees of NYC.
LAWS AT ISSUE
A) Under State Law, Private Citizens Need Licenses to Possess Handguns in Their Homes
B) Article 400 of the Penal Law Governs Handgun Licenses Throughout All of New York State
C) State Law Limits Localities from Imposing a License Fee of More than $10, But Exempts New York City Residents
D) The $340 Fee is Not Calculated to Defray Administrative Costs
E) New York City’s $340 Fee Far Exceeds the Fees of Other Jurisdictions
POINT I: THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS IS A FUNDAMENTAL CIVIL RIGHT AND APPLIES “MOST NOTABLY” IN THE HOMEB) Article 400 of the Penal Law Governs Handgun Licenses Throughout All of New York State
C) State Law Limits Localities from Imposing a License Fee of More than $10, But Exempts New York City Residents
D) The $340 Fee is Not Calculated to Defray Administrative Costs
E) New York City’s $340 Fee Far Exceeds the Fees of Other Jurisdictions
A) The Second Amendment Protects a Personal Right to Keep Firearms, Including Handguns
B) The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is a Fundamental Constitutional Right
C) The Right to Keep and Bear Arms has its Zenith in the Home
D) Familiar Principles of Constitutional Review Supply the Rules of Scrutiny
POINT II: NEW YORK CITY’S $340 FEE IS PROHIBITIVE AND DOES NOT SERVE TO DEFRAY ADMINISTRATIVE COSTSB) The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is a Fundamental Constitutional Right
C) The Right to Keep and Bear Arms has its Zenith in the Home
D) Familiar Principles of Constitutional Review Supply the Rules of Scrutiny
A) Qualified Individuals are Entitled to Obtain Licenses
B) The City Can Only Impose a Nominal Fee that Serves to Defray Attendant Administrative Cost
C) The City’s $340 Fee is Inherently Prohibitive
D) The City’s $340 Fee is Not a Permissible License Fee
POINT III: PENAL LAW § 400.00(14) DENIES EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW TO RESIDENTS OF NEW YORK CITYB) The City Can Only Impose a Nominal Fee that Serves to Defray Attendant Administrative Cost
C) The City’s $340 Fee is Inherently Prohibitive
D) The City’s $340 Fee is Not a Permissible License Fee
A) The Scope, Severity, and Purpose of the Burden Determine the Level of Scrutiny
B) The Equal Protection Clause Invalidates § 400(14)’s Disparate Burden
B) The Equal Protection Clause Invalidates § 400(14)’s Disparate Burden
The opening paragraph sums it up quite nicely:
As we all should know, Mayor Bloomberg attempted to get the fees realigned after the decision in McDonald but the City Council refused. So now we have this case.
The MSJ is written very well and attacks not only the cities fees, but through the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th, the States exemption of the City to its otherwise "reasonable" fee structure.
It will be interesting to see how the responses go.
