U.S. Supreme Court rejects appeal of New York concealed carry law

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The U.S. Supreme Court has proven that the Second Amendment absolutists (absurdists) who argue there can be no laws regulating guns are wrong, yet again. The Court today declined to hear a challenge to a strict New York law that makes it
difficult for residents to get a license to carry a concealed handgun in
public. Oh, gnashing of teeeth and wailing among the gun worshipers and fetisihists!
Supreme Court leaves in place strict N.Y. limit on carrying concealed firearms:

The justices on Monday declined to hear a challenge to a strict New York
law that makes it difficult for residents to get a license to carry a
concealed handgun in public.

The court did not comment in turning away an appeal from five state
residents and the Second Amendment Foundation. Their lawsuit also drew
support from the National Rifle Association and 20 states.

The U.S. Supreme Court has made clear in its Second Amendment cases that government regulation of firearms is permissible. There is no support in law for the absolutist (absurdist) position.

0 responses to “U.S. Supreme Court rejects appeal of New York concealed carry law

  1. Nice try, troll. I never said a denial of cert creates a precedent.

    If the conservative avtivist Roberts Court wanted to revisit the Heller decisions, it would have concocted any excuse to do so. The Court’s denial of cert in this case is a strong policy statement that the Heller decisions remain the law of the land.

    In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (Heller I), Justice Antonin Scalia’s majority opinion did not cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. The Court’s holding in Miller that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”

    In Heller v. District of Columbia, (Heller II), the District of Columbia enacted new firearms restrictions in an effort to cure the constitutional defects that the Supreme Court had identified in Heller, specifically three new provisions: (1) the firearms registration procedures; (2) the prohibition on assault weapons; and (3) the prohibition on large capacity ammunition feeding devices.

    On March 26, 2010, the D.C. District Judge Ricardo M. Urbina denied Dick Heller’s motion for summary judgment and granted the cross motion for summary judgment, finding that the court “concludes that the regulatory provisions that the plaintiffs challenge permissibly regulate the exercise of the core Second Amendment right to use arms for the purpose of self-defense in the home.”

    Legal experts say the decision in District of Columbia v. Heller has been of mainly symbolic importance so far. There have been more than 500 challenges to gun laws and gun prosecutions since Heller was decided, and few of them have succeeded.

    The Second Amendment “absolutist” position that there can be no regulation of firearms has no support in history or law. It is absurd. All rights under the Bill of Rights have limitations and exceptions, including the Second Amendment.

  2. “The U.S. Supreme Court has proven that the Second Amendment absolutists (absurdists) who argue there can be no laws regulating guns are wrong, yet again.”

    This case proves no such thing!
    The plaintiffs made a direct appeal to SCOTUS for a writ of certiorari, but since there have been no cases before any federal, state, or municpal court in NY regarding this law SCOTUS refused to grant the writ. Also, since no plaintiff claimed penalty or loss under the law at this time there was no standing. By refusing to grant the writ SCOTUS creates no precedent and provides no bar to future requests.