An important new ruling from a New York intermediate appellate court found that the fundamental right to possess a handgun applies in New York. On this point, the court relied on the decision in Chwick v. Mulvey, the lawsuit that challenged Nassau County’s ban on the possession of handguns mislabeled as “deceptively colored.”
...Post-Heller cases challenging New York’s weapons laws, such as Maloney v. Rice, have been unsuccessful because the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has ruled that Heller does not apply. This is because Heller reviewed a District of Columbia gun ban and did not explicitly address whether the Second Amendment applies to the states. The Perkins decision, relying on Chwick, is thus highly significant because it bypasses the need for incorporation of the Second Amendment to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment. [More]
I confess to being pretty much ignorant about this. This is what an Internet search turned up. And this Mr. Chwick's website.
Anyone who knows about this and can enlighten us further, please enter a comment.
8 comments:
People v. Perkins: http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2009/2009_03962.htm
Chwick v. Mulvey: http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/pdfs/2008/2008_33486.pdf
"We reject defendant's contention that the statutes under which he was convicted violate the Second Amendment of the US Constitution and Civil Rights Law § 4. Defendant's reliance on District of Columbia v Heller (554 US —, 128 S Ct 2783 [2008]) is misplaced. While the United States Supreme Court concluded in that case that the Second Amendment confers a constitutionally protected individual right to keep and bear arms as a means of self-defense within the home, it also held that the right conferred by the Second Amendment—and, by extension, Civil Rights Law § 4 (see Chwick v Mulvey, 2008 NY Slip Op 22486[U], *19 [2008])—is not absolute and may be limited by reasonable governmental restrictions (see District of Columbia v Heller, 554 US at —, 128 S Ct at 2816)."
If the real intent of the 2nd amendment is to provide the means for overthrowing the government by force when necessary (and I believe it is), then allowing any government at any level the ability to decide which guns are appropriate to its own violent overthrow is... what's the word I'm looking for...
NUTS!
From Chwick:
"Lastly, the petitioners' reliance on the recent United States Supreme Court holding in District of Columbia v. Heller, __ US __, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008) - and by extension - New York Civil Rights Law §4, is misplaced. In Heller, the Court engaged in a detailed textual analysis of the Second Amendment and concluded, inter alia, that the amendment created a constitutionally protected "individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation" and for home self defense (Heller, supra, at 2797, 2822)."
Interesting slip of the tongue... did you see it?
No. Frankly, I can't tell what is going on and doubt I'll have the time to track things down and tease out their details.
We need a Cliffs Notes version of what happened and what it means if anyone is expected to form a fact-based opinion.
It appears Chwick lost. It appears Perkins lost. I'm not getting why this is presented to us as a victory.
What am I missing?
All I can see is the inferred incorporation happened in the second sentence from the quoted Chwick case. Other than that, like yourself I don't see a slam dunk anywhere. Both petitioners lost their cases and the courts uphelp "reasonable restrictions" from Heller.
IMO, neither Perkins nor Chwick were strong cases. The new law required all "deceptively colored handguns" to be turned in to the police for disposal. Due Process is only mentioned once in Chwick.
So we have the right to keep and bear arms, that shall not be infringed, but it is subject to reasonable infringements?
Must be some lawyers and bureaucrats invloved in that abortion of a decision.
I seem to recall warning everybody that Heller was a disguised victory for the gun grabbers. Remember? I told you all that a lot of tyrannical hats would be hung on the "defense in the home" phraseology.
I am not surprised. This will not be settled peacefully. I hate that, but hating the truth of something does not make it less true.
And that is not the only back door route to a ban hidden in plain sight in Heller.
Post a Comment