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

[Tim Nunan]

It's New York so what else could we have expected?

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

[MattCary]

"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 <cite class="cite" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; outline-width: 0px; outline-style: initial; outline-color: initial; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; font-style: italic; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; ">Kachalsky. v. Cacace,</cite> 10-cv-05413.

If public safety and preventing crime is your stated goal, empowering your citizens to carry is the proven solution.

Oh! Right. Facts... gun control folks hate those, don't they?

[vontar]

The judges over steps their bounds by pretending to be Nostradamus. In trying to follow form rules, I won't directly quote but the 'honorable' judge said something about if they have access to a loaded gun it might lead to a lethal road rage event. So even though the plaintiffs don't current fall under the category to prohibit them from having a concealed permit they have been blocked from having a permit on the grounds of what they 'MIGHT' do in the future.

I did not know they had the technology from 'Minority Report' available for judges yet.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWL3Uw7872s

[Guest PapaB]

What a shock that they based their decision in part due to a ruling from -

wait for it...

Illinois.

I know, you're shocked and amazed.

A thinking Judge (not a liberal loon) would have told New York that if it wants to severely restrict concealed carry, it would have to allow open carry because people have "the right to bear arms", not just the right to keep them. Too bad they're not familiar with that concept.

[vontar]

What a shock that they based their decision in part due to a ruling from -

wait for it...

Illinois.

I know, you're shocked and amazed.

A thinking Judge (not a liberal loon) would have told New York that if it wants to severely restrict concealed carry, it would have to allow open carry because people have "the right to bear arms", not just the right to keep them. Too bad they're not familiar with that concept.

I noticed that too, one of the few states they could have found such an ruling.

[Guest Skill82]

The pathetic liberal minded judge says that simply transporting a loaded firearm is dangerous and undesirable and may lead to the endangerment of public safety. Then states that a volatile situation may occur due to a hypothetical road rage incident or disagreement or dispute. None of which is backed up by historical statistic based fact. Yet, the judge does not recognize the real level of statistically documented criminal violence that a law abiding citizen is clearly subject to living in the so called great State of New York. Interesting how the Judge ignores actual, articulable and statistically documented reality in place for hypothetical's that may endanger the public by law abiding citizens. If these plaintiffs value their freedoms they hit the road and find State to live in that answers to and respects the right of their citizenry.

[QuietDan]

IMO this won't stand on appeal. The government cannot pick and choose who is worthy of protecting themselves and who is not. Unless the state or local government is willing to assign an individual and personal police officer or bodyguard to each person who is denied a permit, ultimately they will be required to issue a permit to those who request one.

It seems to me that at a certain level, if the government denies me the right to protect MYSELF, the government acquires the DUTY to protect me, at whatever cost. If the government is not willing to absorb that cost, then they must allow me to protect myself. When the government is finally presented with such a cost choice, they will pick the cheaper one every time. It is most cost effective to permit citizens to protect themselves.

The issue could be forced in legislative action by denying bodyguard funds for government officials. Mayor Bloomberg, the arrogant ba$tard, would have a whole different opinion on concealed carry and personal protection if he did not have a bodyguard contingent on the public dime.