golocx4
Got Beretta's?
About 18,500 New Yorkers held permits in 2008 to carry a handgun, according to the Division of Criminal Justice Services. I wonder what the number is in 2010?
Interesting, got this while reading about the New York Court of Appeals declining a 2A case.
Kachalsky v. Cacace was brought in 2008 by solo practitioner Alan Kachalsky of Rye Brook after Westchester County Court Judge Susan Cacase denied his request for a full-carry gun permit under Penal Law §400.00[2][f].
A 4-0 Appellate Division, 2nd Department, panel upheld the denial of Kachalsky's pistol permit request in September 2009 in Kachalsky v. Cacase, 65 AD3d 1045 (2009).
In an interview, Kachalsky said he wanted to secure the gun to protect himself during possible random onslaughts by deranged individuals, such as the shooting spree by student Seung-Hui Cho at Virginia Tech University in which 35 people died.
"If someone else has a gun, the body count might have been what? Two, three?" Kachalsky said. "This whole anti-gun, anti-Second Amendment lobby, whatever you call it, it is just not reasonable. But with the way New York handles pistol permits, the only people who are able to protect themselves are the criminals."
The attorney said he knew it would have been a long shot to get authorization to carry a concealed weapon through courts in downstate New York or the Court of Appeals, where he contended that an anti-gun philosophy also pervades.
"They are not intellectually honest," Kachalsky said. "It is not the first time I have experienced an appeals court when they are faced with giving a decision that goes against their political views. They avoid the case in any way that they can."
Kachalsky said he was examining the potential of appealing his gun case to federal courts.
Could this be our (New York's) McDonald vs Chicago? If they guy needs donations to take the case up the ladder, I would contribute.
Link N.Y. High Court Judge Takes Colleagues to Task Over Constitutional Issue in Gun Case
In a rare written dissent, Judge Robert S. Smith
has taken his six colleagues on the New York
Court of Appeals to task for not finding the
"substantial constitutional question" that would
allow them to review a judge's denial of a pistol
permit to a Westchester County, N.Y., attorney.
One court observer said he could recall only a
few dissents in the last decade to denials of leaves to appeal.
Here, however, Smith protested that the majority
had used a standard with no basis in state law to
deny a hearing in a case that raised a serious constitutional issue.
The judge acknowledged that, like his colleagues,
he also has been guilty of relying on loose
readings of what constitutes a "substantial"
constitutional question triggering the court's review as of right.
"We have at times followed the practice -- one in
which, I confess, I have joined -- of giving
'substantial' a much more flexible meaning, so
flexible that it confers on us, in effect,
discretion comparable to that we have in deciding
whether to grant permission to appeal under CPLR
5602," Smith wrote. "I am convinced that this
practice is inconsistent with both the
constitutional provision and the statute implementing it."
Kachalsky v. Cacace presented the question of
whether Penal Law §400.20(2)(f), which requires
"proper cause" for the issuance of a license to
carry a concealed handgun, violated the Second
Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Smith argued
that there could hardly be an issue posing a more
"substantial" constitutional question for the court.
Kachalsky raises the questions of whether the
Second Amendment limits the states or the federal
government from issuing gun-possessing permits
and whether a prohibition from carrying a
concealed weapon without proper cause is
consistent with the Second Amendment, Smith wrote.
"I make no comment on the merits of either issue,
except to say that neither is insubstantial," the
judge wrote in his Feb. 16 dissent to the
majority's summary refusal to grant leave to
appeal. "On neither issue could petitioner's
case, by any remote stretch, be called frivolous or fanciful."
He noted that the issue of whether the Second
Amendment limits the powers of states and the
federal government to set limits on gun
possession is of "such great substance" that the
U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments on
Tuesday in a case about the legality of Chicago
gun control ordinances in McDonald v. City of Chicago.
If nothing else, Smith's dissent provides some
insight into the thoughts of at least one judge
on his colleagues' bases for denying leave to
appeal on constitutional grounds in civil matters, court observers said.
Interesting, got this while reading about the New York Court of Appeals declining a 2A case.
Kachalsky v. Cacace was brought in 2008 by solo practitioner Alan Kachalsky of Rye Brook after Westchester County Court Judge Susan Cacase denied his request for a full-carry gun permit under Penal Law §400.00[2][f].
A 4-0 Appellate Division, 2nd Department, panel upheld the denial of Kachalsky's pistol permit request in September 2009 in Kachalsky v. Cacase, 65 AD3d 1045 (2009).
In an interview, Kachalsky said he wanted to secure the gun to protect himself during possible random onslaughts by deranged individuals, such as the shooting spree by student Seung-Hui Cho at Virginia Tech University in which 35 people died.
"If someone else has a gun, the body count might have been what? Two, three?" Kachalsky said. "This whole anti-gun, anti-Second Amendment lobby, whatever you call it, it is just not reasonable. But with the way New York handles pistol permits, the only people who are able to protect themselves are the criminals."
The attorney said he knew it would have been a long shot to get authorization to carry a concealed weapon through courts in downstate New York or the Court of Appeals, where he contended that an anti-gun philosophy also pervades.
"They are not intellectually honest," Kachalsky said. "It is not the first time I have experienced an appeals court when they are faced with giving a decision that goes against their political views. They avoid the case in any way that they can."
Kachalsky said he was examining the potential of appealing his gun case to federal courts.
Could this be our (New York's) McDonald vs Chicago? If they guy needs donations to take the case up the ladder, I would contribute.
Link N.Y. High Court Judge Takes Colleagues to Task Over Constitutional Issue in Gun Case
In a rare written dissent, Judge Robert S. Smith
has taken his six colleagues on the New York
Court of Appeals to task for not finding the
"substantial constitutional question" that would
allow them to review a judge's denial of a pistol
permit to a Westchester County, N.Y., attorney.
One court observer said he could recall only a
few dissents in the last decade to denials of leaves to appeal.
Here, however, Smith protested that the majority
had used a standard with no basis in state law to
deny a hearing in a case that raised a serious constitutional issue.
The judge acknowledged that, like his colleagues,
he also has been guilty of relying on loose
readings of what constitutes a "substantial"
constitutional question triggering the court's review as of right.
"We have at times followed the practice -- one in
which, I confess, I have joined -- of giving
'substantial' a much more flexible meaning, so
flexible that it confers on us, in effect,
discretion comparable to that we have in deciding
whether to grant permission to appeal under CPLR
5602," Smith wrote. "I am convinced that this
practice is inconsistent with both the
constitutional provision and the statute implementing it."
Kachalsky v. Cacace presented the question of
whether Penal Law §400.20(2)(f), which requires
"proper cause" for the issuance of a license to
carry a concealed handgun, violated the Second
Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Smith argued
that there could hardly be an issue posing a more
"substantial" constitutional question for the court.
Kachalsky raises the questions of whether the
Second Amendment limits the states or the federal
government from issuing gun-possessing permits
and whether a prohibition from carrying a
concealed weapon without proper cause is
consistent with the Second Amendment, Smith wrote.
"I make no comment on the merits of either issue,
except to say that neither is insubstantial," the
judge wrote in his Feb. 16 dissent to the
majority's summary refusal to grant leave to
appeal. "On neither issue could petitioner's
case, by any remote stretch, be called frivolous or fanciful."
He noted that the issue of whether the Second
Amendment limits the powers of states and the
federal government to set limits on gun
possession is of "such great substance" that the
U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments on
Tuesday in a case about the legality of Chicago
gun control ordinances in McDonald v. City of Chicago.
If nothing else, Smith's dissent provides some
insight into the thoughts of at least one judge
on his colleagues' bases for denying leave to
appeal on constitutional grounds in civil matters, court observers said.
Last edited:
