Can someone put this in english please?
How does this law even pass a rational basis test? I guess the solution is to head to a range in PA so FOPA provides an affirmative defense?
How the heck does that even make any sense whatsoever? If you asked anyone even an anti gunner if they think you should be able to take a gun to any gun range they would say yes. No they wouldn't, you shouldn't own a gun.
Why would the POLICE be against this? Your Lucky we let you have a gun and its bigger than ours so don't bring it out of the house..
No... under this courts decision, that would not work. Your permit is for the gun to be at your premises. Imagine that a store owner in Maryland keeps a gun for Self Defense under a counter .. No permit is needed. Employees can even access the firearm, but they can't leave the store with it or take it out of state.
This is kind of the same in a NYC screwy way.
I hope my explanation is correct, wouldn't want to lose my IANAL Card!
Pooler - Appointed by Bill Clinton
Lynch - Appointed by Barack Obama
Carney - Appointed by Barack Obama
Did anyone really expect anything different?
It's a waste of time to even bring cases anymore, not until the Supreme Court composition changes. Kcbrown and I have been right all along.
I think the weakness was not having a plaintiff with a second home outside NY state. The court breezily dismissed the 2A argument by saying the PL could just get another permit in the NY county where his second home is located and buy another pistol.
Strict scrutiny does not attach to Rule 5-23 as a result of Colantone’s desire to transport the handgun licensed to his New York City residence to his second home in Hancock, New York. Even if the Rule relates to “core” rights under the Second Amendment by prohibiting Colantone from taking his licensed firearm to his second home, the Rule does not substantially burden his ability to obtain a firearm for that home, because an adequate alternative remainfor [Colantone] to acquire a firearm for self-defense.”
Decastro, 682 F.3d at 168; see also New York State Rifle, 804 F.3d at 259 (“No ubstantial burden exists . . . if adequate alternatives remain for law-abiding citizens to acquire a firearm for self-defense.”)
I'm stunned at how they just hand-waved past "you can apply for another permit, buy a second gun, and keep it [unsupervised] at your second home" as not presenting a burden. Might as well tell him he can't take his money out of The City because he can always get another job and earn some elsewhere.