SAF Sues New York City over Handgun Fees!

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!

    • Register Log in
    M

    mikec

    Ultimate Member
    Dec 1, 2007
    11,453
    Off I-83
    Some added thoughts as I read this thread.

    If someone gets a carry permit in CA, easy to do in certain areas, a CA permit is valid everywhere in CA. No restrictions barring you from carrying LA or SF, so CA has no issues with a person carrying in a high population density area. Why does NY state and NYC have such concerns?

    Back when I got my NY permit, a few years ago now, the paperwork was sent by the permit department to the city PD where I lived, some unit of the NY State Police and to the FBI. Is NYC concerned that a person who lives in Rochester or Buffalo isn't investigated as well as a person living in NYC? A bit of arrogance I would say.

    I would love to see the next step be several folks who have valid "upstate" permits sue NYC and the state over the fact their permits aren't valid in NYC.
     
    M

    MDFF2008

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 12, 2008
    24,752
    mikec said:
    Some added thoughts as I read this thread.

    If someone gets a carry permit in CA, easy to do in certain areas, a CA permit is valid everywhere in CA. No restrictions barring you from carrying LA or SF, so CA has no issues with a person carrying in a high population density area. Why does NY state and NYC have such concerns?

    Back when I got my NY permit, a few years ago now, the paperwork was sent by the permit department to the city PD where I lived, some unit of the NY State Police and to the FBI. Is NYC concerned that a person who lives in Rochester or Buffalo isn't investigated as well as a person living in NYC? A bit of arrogance I would say.

    I would love to see the next step be several folks who have valid "upstate" permits sue NYC and the state over the fact their permits aren't valid in NYC.
    Click to expand...

    No, they just don't want people having guns in NYC and they are using their home rule to accomplish it.
     
    P

    Patrick

    MSI Executive Member
    Apr 26, 2009
    7,725
    Calvert County
    The irony here is that when national reciprocity passes it will be the case that people from 49 states (assuming IL and WI go shall-issue this year) AND those given carry permits by New York City will be able to carry in New York City. The only people who will not be able to carry in NYC will be those from Upstate New York.

    This is one of the reasons they are trying to pass the law federally: to demonstrate the idiocy of a few isolated anti-gun places (MD being one of them).

    This case against Bloomberg is another rung of the ladder.
     
    swinokur

    swinokur

    In a State of Bliss
    Patriot Picket
    Apr 15, 2009
    55,466
    Westminster USA
    More plaintiffs added:

    SAF FILES AMENDED BLOOMBERG
    COMPLAINT WITH ADDITIONAL PLAINTIFFS     ​

    BELLEVUE, WA - The Second Amendment Foundation announced this morning that it has filed an amended complaint in federal district court against New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and the City of New York over exorbitant gun licensing fees, adding two additional plaintiffs who came forward asking to be part of the legal action.

    SAF Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb said with these additional plaintiffs, there are now seven private citizens who have joined SAF and the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association in the lawsuit.

    "We are being overwhelmed with calls following yesterday's announcement about the lawsuit," Gottlieb acknowledged. "We want to assure everyone that they do not need to be part of the lawsuit in order to benefit from a victory.

    "SAF truly appreciates the wave of enthusiasm and support from New York gun owners," he continued. "We need to move forward right now, and if people would like to support our lawsuit with a tax-exempt contribution to SAF, we would welcome that."

    The lawsuit was filed Tuesday in Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York. Plaintiffs are represented by attorney David Jensen.

    "Almost immediately after the lawsuit was filed," Gottlieb said, "our phones started ringing as people wanted to join the lawsuit. We simply cannot take on more plaintiffs at this point and further delay the process.

    "We do not want New York's outrageous $340 license fee to continue one more day than it has to," he explained. "Imagine if this was a poll tax. How many New Yorkers would be storming city hall right now, demanding their voting rights? The city's excessive gun licensing fee amounts to the same egregious assault on every citizen's right to self-protection in their own home."




    The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation's oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control. SAF has previously funded successful firearms-related suits against the cities of Los Angeles; New Haven, CT; and San Francisco on behalf of American gun owners, a lawsuit against the cities suing gun makers and an amicus brief and fund for the Emerson case holding the Second Amendment as an individual right.
    Click to expand...
     
    SkunkWerX

    SkunkWerX

    Ultimate Member
    Jul 17, 2010
    1,577
    MoCo/HoCo border
    More low hanging fruit! :bannana:

    Hopefully any of the fallout from this case will serve to tarnish Bloomberg's image.

    It's still galling to think you have to pay even $10 for a permit just to KEEP an arm.
    Anywhere there are permits, there are lists. Lists in the hands of those such as Bloomberg & cronies is never a good thing.

    Be that as it may, go get 'em NY! :thumbsup:
     
    Gray Peterson

    Gray Peterson

    Active Member
    Aug 18, 2009
    422
    Lynnwood, WA
    SkunkWerX said:
    More low hanging fruit! :bannana:

    Hopefully any of the fallout from this case will serve to tarnish Bloomberg's image.

    It's still galling to think you have to pay even $10 for a permit just to KEEP an arm.
    Anywhere there are permits, there are lists. Lists in the hands of those such as Bloomberg & cronies is never a good thing.

    Be that as it may, go get 'em NY! :thumbsup:
    Click to expand...

    First things first. Let's think about it for a minute:

    There's very few legal gun owners in NYC. It's because of the onerous process and the high costs. Reduce that fee down to $10 plus the DJIS background check fee ($94.25) and the amount of gun ownership in NYC goes way up.

    What's funny here is that Bloomberg actually TRIED to get the City Council to cooperate and reduce the fees downward ($25 for a possession license, $110 for a carry license, plus the state required DJIS fee). The City Council refused to do so, saying "We refuse to be intimidated by the NRA!!!". These morons didn't realize that it wasn't NRA that was pre-litigation lettering them, it was SAF, the folks who did McDonald. City Councilman Vallone, to his credit, tried to get it through, but the City Council refused to go alone, basically calling Bloomberg a coward and that they were going to stick it to the "demonic gun lobby who kills our children".

    Bloomberg can end the entire lawsuit...right now, by settling. He might actually do that.

    That being said, it creates an interesting situation. New York State requires possession in the home to be licensed. There is current 2nd circuit case law, Spinelli v. City of New York, which states that 58 days of deprivation of a right is too long of a time for the purpose of due process, and that was purely operation of a gun store.

    It regularly takes the NYPD more than a year to process applications. If they were held to the $10 rule, and the Spinelli due-process doctrine, they would not have the financial capability to play games or dance with it. Just run DJIS check on initial issuance, and run NICS on renewal.

    With these things, it'll make it un-affordable for the city to keep licensing it. They'll ask the state for relief.
     
    yellowfin

    yellowfin

    Pro 2A Gastronome
    Jul 30, 2010
    1,516
    Lancaster, PA
    It only ends if our side agrees to the settlement, which I really hope they won't. We need a 14th Amendment ruling against NYC to go after them for the rest of the stuff like no carry with NYS carry licenses accepted and NYC calling anything semi auto a AWB, etc.
     
    Gray Peterson

    Gray Peterson

    Active Member
    Aug 18, 2009
    422
    Lynnwood, WA
    yellowfin said:
    It only ends if our side agrees to the settlement, which I really hope they won't. We need a 14th Amendment ruling against NYC to go after them for the rest of the stuff like no carry with NYS carry licenses accepted and NYC calling anything semi auto a AWB, etc.
    Click to expand...

    Kachalsky will fix the carry issue somewhat. If NYC settles on the price thing, and they give everything they want with an iron clad settlement agreement enforcible via sanctions and contempt, they would be required to settle under the FRCP and by the canons of legal ethics. The price gets reduced for an endorsement to $10, then the "out of city endorsement" isn't as big of a problem.

    Again, I think NYSP will eventually take it all over once we take away their toys of control.
     
    Fideo

    Fideo

    Active Member
    Aug 27, 2009
    181
    NoVA
    NY is certainly a target rich environment for SAF.

    NY is my home state and it is difficult to not only not be able to carry when I go home to see family, but to not even be allowed to possess a handgun in any manner. There are a lot of laws in NY regarding 2A that can/should be found unconstitutional.

    -Permit to possess (Not granted to non-residents, except in certain circumstances):mad54:

    -According to NYS this covers transportation through NY in any manner. (Yes I know once in court you would be protected by Federal Law)
     
    krucam

    krucam

    Ultimate Member
    Dec 5, 2008
    8,929
    3rd Rock from the Sun...DFW, TX
    A Scheduling Order (and other misc filings) have been submitted in Kwong v. Bloomberg.

    Here is the Docket

    05/25/2011 10 SCHEDULING ORDER: No later than 6/22/2011, Plaintiffs will move for summary judgment, and Intervenor may move to dismiss.
    No later than 7/29/2011, Defendants and Intervenor will respond to Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, Defendants and/or Intervenor may cross-move for summary judgment, and Plaintiffs will respond to Intervenor's motion to dismiss.
    No later than 8/19/2011, Plaintiffs will file their reply in support of summary judgment and their opposition to any cross-motion for summary judgment, and Intervenor will file its reply in support of its motion to dismiss.
    No later than 9/13/2011, Defendants and/or Intervenor will file their reply in support of any cross-motion for summary judgment.
    (Motions due by 6/22/2011. Cross Motions due by 7/29/2011. Responses due by 8/19/2011. Replies due by 9/13/2011.) (Signed by Judge John G. Koeltl on 5/25/2011) (tro) (Entered: 05/26/2011)
    Click to expand...

    So, as we've seen in a few of these cases, this one is being set up for a relatively fast track through the District. Good for NY...
     
    P

    Patrick

    MSI Executive Member
    Apr 26, 2009
    7,725
    Calvert County
    At this point there are a number of cases already far down the pipe, so throwing delaying actions does little on a national scale. Ironically, pushing these through the District fast might have the effect of actually delaying the eventual relief in the particular cases involved...if the Supreme Court rules between decision and appeal it will take longer to clean up the mess than if the District Court has yet to decide. In other words, getting to the Circuit will slow things down if something like Williams goes our way soon.

    And getting an un-appealable constitutional smack-down from a District Court would just be embarrassing. Better to get your ass kicked in an appellate court.

    No idea what is driving the people here. Just playing Internet games.

    It seems NY and NJ are willing to fight, where Chicago and MD want to play games. More likely we're just dealing with different cultures. I can tell you now that my NY heritage doesn't always play in the Mid-Atlantic, California or the South - even though I hide it well enough. It still "shines through" at times. :innocent0
     
    yellowfin

    yellowfin

    Pro 2A Gastronome
    Jul 30, 2010
    1,516
    Lancaster, PA
    I really look forward to seeing at least one of these cases finally WIN so the people around me up here can get some relief from the severe case of BGOS.
     
    You must log in or register to reply here.

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
    USTASC banner ad - training

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    275,430
    Messages
    7,281,460
    Members
    33,452
    Latest member
    J_Gunslinger

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom