U.S. Court Rejects Challenge to State's Concealed Gun Law

Here we see a federal judge from New York denying the rights of Americans to protect themselves.

It's so convoluted now that both sides argue the same point for opposite sides of the spectrum.

The People want to carry to protect themselves and stay safe. The Government won't let them because it's too dangerous to just protect yourselves and stay safe!

When the only people on the streets with guns are criminals and crime report specialists (I mean cops), how is that safer for anyone?

In a case brought by four New Yorkers challenging the denial of "concealed carry" gun permits by four state judges, Southern District Judge Cathy Seibel said she found persuasive the reasoning of the Illinois' Court of Appeals in People v. Marin, 795 N.E.2d 958 (2003), that the overriding purpose of gun statutes should be to prevent innocent people from being victimized by gun violence.

Isn't it fantastic when activist judges from certain nanny states use the arguments of activist judges from other nanny states to settle their point? *Barf!

Quoting Marin, Judge Seibel said, "The underlying activity of possessing or transporting an accessible and loaded weapon is itself dangerous and undesirable, regardless of the intent of the bearer since it may lead to the endangerment of public safety." Marin also held that transporting a loaded weapon on a public street "creates a volatile situation vulnerable to spontaneous lethal aggression in the event of road rage or any other disagreement or dispute." "For all these reasons, I hold that the state has an important government interest in promoting public safety and preventing crime," Judge Seibel said in Kachalsky. v. Cacace, 10-cv-05413.

For "all these reasons"?! There isn't a single valid point here!

In the main, the concealed handgun permit statute appears to apply to those who legitimately need protection from harm, such as shopkeepers and merchants, bankers and even judges, "who may be the targets of criminal defendants or disgruntled litigants," the judge said. But the Legislature has left it up to those who grant licenses to carry concealed handguns to decide on a case-by-case basis, a process that sometimes entails the denial of permits for various reasons, Judge Seibel noted. "Section 400.00(2)(f) may not be perfect, but it need not be to pass constitutional muster," she wrote. "Section 400.00(2)(f)'s limitations promote the government's strong interest in public safety and crime prevention, and are substantially related to it."

So, it's obvious to the judge that she and hers may need to defend themselves but there's no reason for the people to have that same sense of security...with decisions like this one and the "reasoning" behind it, no wonder she feels that way...

i was going to get mad at this decision, then realized that shopkeepers, bankers, and judges cannot possibly ever get into a "road rage" situation because they have always obeyed the law. no judge will ever shoot anybody, right?

so by their logic nobody in new york should be in the hospital with a bullet wound right now. because gun laws stop gun trafficking, we all know that, they say it every 5 frickin minutes. if you are going to discriminate do it based on the mentality and knowledge of the gunowner.

if they dont know all of the safety involved, or dont even know how to clean it, thats one thing. but saying "no no no, you cant have a gun because you are a construction worker. even though because of your wages you have to live in a bad part of town, you just arent worth protecting. who would possibly try to commit a crime against some random construction worker?

dont we all know the only crime that happens, happens to businesses, banks, and judges? common sense

reply to post by Venomilk


Exactly! You'd think if anybody in town knew how dangerous it was on the street, it would be a judge sitting there day after day convicting dangerous criminals. If anybody in town understood the limitations of a police force it might be that same judge. How can anybody, with those two items thrown at them everyday, dissuade a citizen from defending themselves, much less make it illegal to do so with necessary force?

reply to post by TreadUpon
The 46 people who were shot last weekend in New York obviosly were shot with something other than guns. Because they're illegal.
And criminals would never think to break the law. . . . . my head hurts now.

reply to post by beezzer


Pennsylvania has one of the largest standing armies of any state. They are called Hunters and they own at the very minium a Hand Gun/Rifle/ShotGun and many reload their own ammo. Let some nanny from NY come here and say you cant carry..

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by TreadUpon

 

The 46 people who were shot last weekend in New York obviosly were shot with something other than guns. Because they're illegal.
And criminals would never think to break the law. . . . . my head hurts now.

And they had to have been shot outside of "gun free zones", because guns cease to function as soon as they are entered. Physics actually fails to work inside gun free zones.

/TOA

I support CCW laws. I think that every American who hasn't committed a violent felony should have the right to keep themselves safe

I cannot condone any action by the government to deny a law abiding citizen their constitutionally protected rights.

HOWEVER...

There may be underlying reasons why these people were denied, and that should be taken into account.

reply to post by HauntWok


The reason these folks brought the lawsuit is because there were no extenuating circumstances for heir denial.

And I'm against all registrations, certifications, laws, fees, taxes, etc that INFRINGE on our right to keep and bear arms. I've got a permit, the US Constitution. (Even the word, "permit" pisses me off...too close to "permission".

" the overriding purpose of gun statutes should be to prevent innocent people from being victimized by gun violence."

Well, since we all know that criminals always abide by these statutes and never use guns, then we shouldn't have them either. Huh? Does that sound stupid to anyone else or is it just me? They are basically saying that we don't need guns to protect ourselves because .... again, Huh? If you take the guns from the innocent then no one will be a victim of gun violence ? How many brain cells do you have to kill to become a judge? Apparently quite a few. I would love to see a list of how many judges carry and from which states.

I recently made a comment concerning these 'overriding' laws and gun control Here, but I would like to hit home on this point.

The Constitution cannot be 'overridden' by laws. It is the supreme law. Even the Supreme Court should have nothing to do with ruling 'how it works'. These types of laws drive me up the wall. The Patriot Act infringes on our Rights to protection from 'unwarranted' searches and seizures, yet, they can 'take your rights away'? This is not how it works.

I don't even have a law degree and I know more about how these things work and what the Framers intended! I often contemplate getting into the government, but I'm not sure if I could handle working with this sort of insanity.

Edit:Forgot to add something.

The 'law' is known to use varying descriptions of words and meanings. This isn't right and only leads to abuse of the civilians and misconstruing the law intentionally. I believe that the way laws are written should be reestablished to use 'layman's' terms and definitions, otherwise, who knows what the original intention was and how are you expected to follow laws you can't understand without a lawyer or degree in law from Harvard or something?

reply to post by TreadUpon


See, and that's where gun nuts loose me. I'm fine with the right to bear arms. I really am. But when a person starts in thinking that the 2nd Amendment is their holy licence to wave a gun around like a madman at all times anywhere they see fit, pointing it at people loaded or whatever, then I have to disagree.

Where your right to bear arms ends is when it infringes on my unalienable right to life. If a person doesn't have the personal responsibility enough to even own a firearm without feeling the need to shove it in everyone's faces, then in my opinion, that person is too immature, and should probably not own anything stronger than a straw.

Again, cause apparently I can't say this enough for people to grasp this simple concept, I am fine with gun ownership and I think that owning firearms is one of the great things about this country.

The problem some gun nuts have is that they piecemeal the 2nd Amendment to suit their idiocy.

The whole thing is as follows, read it with me, it's not that long:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Note that it's not a period between the word State and the, it's a comma. What does this mean? It means this is one sentence and not two. And what gun nuts forget is the first part of that sentence, "A well regulated Militia". Yes that's right, the founding fathers wanted the idea of a Militia, and who regulates that Militia? Congress, in Article I section 8:

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Note it says in Article I Section 8 that the Congress is supposed to organize arm and discipline the Militia. Which along with the first part of the 2nd Amendment means that they sure as hell can REGULATE arms in this country and those regulations do not constitute an infringement of the 2nd Amendment.

reply to post by Xen0m0rpH


Laws are written specifically so that We The People CANNOT understand them. There is a reason for the way they are written like that, either so we don't know if we are breaking a law or not(only 600,000 of them or so) or so we have to ask if we can do something(a true hallmark of a free society, huh?).

"Gun Control" is the physical manipulation of an inanimate object.

What this judge is doing is actually "People Control"...If they framed their argument truthfully they'd get kicked in the coconuts...

Originally posted by HauntWok

HOWEVER...

There may be underlying reasons why these people were denied, and that should be taken into account.

Underlying reasons why an entire population is denied their right to carry a gun?

Yeah there is.. it's a Judge with an agenda.
Population control.

Just read the constitution and understand why we were guaranteed the right to bear arms. You clearly will see why politicians want this law reversed.

cant really say anything nice about new york obviously your not all bad people

however who has the guns?

the cops and the criminals and who gets caught in between? they do

when people legislate their only means of self defense a 9-11 call im saying the wrong people are being shot.

that may sound mean and crude but ask the dead guy what his thoughts are oh wait sily me

dead men cant speak.

simple fact there are millions of gun owners in this country who have never killed anyone cant say the same for cops or criminal funny part there is one of them is "legal"

Originally posted by HauntWok
reply to post by TreadUpon

 

~snip~

... when a person starts in thinking that the 2nd Amendment is their holy licence to wave a gun around like a madman at all times anywhere they see fit, pointing it at people loaded or whatever, then I have to disagree.

~snip~

Sounds like you've let your imagination run a bit wild there. Show me any responsible gun owner who thinks or behaves like that...seriously.

reply to post by BadNinja68


This is NOT denying an entire generation their right to have a firearm. This case was 4 people in particular that were denied a CCW.

This did not deny them the right to own a firearm, and having a concealed weapon is not a constitutional right.

This is why they were denied:

The judge found §400.00(2)(f), which provides for the carrying of a concealed handgun, requires that applicants show an "actual and articulable" need to possess their weapons "rather than merely speculative, potential, or even specious" grounds for self-defense.

So, without the ability to show an actual and articulable need to possess their weapons (IE, are they a jeweler, are they a cabbie?), it falls under the speculative, potential, or even specious grounds (IE, they think that they should roam around NY with a 38 special in their belts so they can shoot whoever looks at them cross-eyed.) and that's why they were denied a CCW, but they weren't denied the right to own a firearm.

See the difference?

I know I'm never gonna get through to the people that think they should be able to shoot everyone that looks at them sideways, or thinks that responsible gun ownership means they can take out a whole family with a full auto AK-47, or that politicians are somehow viable targets for a person on a bad day. But reason has to prevail, and the first part of the 2nd Amendment does give the government the right to regulate firearms, and regulation is not infringement.

Good 'ol New York... where the criminals and thugs all have guns, and the law-abiding, decent person is barely able to own a NERF TOY GUN.

I would pose these questions to the government:

If you were a criminal, and you had a gun, and you wanted to mug someone, or try to kill someone, or try to rob a bank, would you feel better doing it if you knew that chances were slim anyone had guns on them as a result of the law, or would you feel better doing it if you knew that a lot of people very likely WERE packing heat?...

Uh.....duh?..The criminal would much rather rob a bank in a society where he knew most people would obey the law and not carry.

If everyone was allowed to concealed carry, including yourself, and you had a fit of 'road rage' or got into another 'dispute' with someone in public, would you feel that shooting them would be wise in a society where other bystanders packing heat would see you?

Uh....duh?..You'd probably think twice on shooting someone over something as trivial as an argument or road rage when you knew most people wouldn't be carrying.

It's just stupid...

"On June 16, 2008, on a country road outside Turlock, California, friends, family and strangers, including a volunteer fire chief, stood by as Sergio Aguiar methodically stomped his two-year-old son Axel Casian to death, explaining in a calm voice that he "had to get the demons out" of the boy. He stopped at one point to turn on the hazard lights on his truck. No one moved to take the child or attack Aguiar. Witnesses said they were all afraid to intervene because Aguiar "might have something in his pocket", although some people looked for rocks or boards hoping to find something to subdue him. The fire chief's fiancee called 911. Police officer Jerry Ramar arrived by helicopter and told Aguiar to stop. Aguiar gave Ramar the finger and Ramar shot him in the head. Police officers and psychologists later explained that the inaction of the crowd was justified in that "ordinary people aren't going to tackle a psychotic," that they were not "psychologically prepared" to intervene, and that being frozen in indecision and fear is a normal reaction."

Now, if any of those bystanders had guns, they wouldn't have HAD to have 'looked for rocks or board' to subdue him, the man would simply have been shot. People WOULDN'T have hesitated to intervene so much.

There are plenty of examples like this... Blah..

Cheers