Free Market Evaluation - Send us your resume and we will give you free feedback
Judge Punished for Inappropriate Facebook Posts 
Judge Punished for Inappropriate Facebook Posts 
Jared Fogle Divorce Finalized, Now for the Custody Battle
Jared Fogle Divorce Finalized, Now for the Custody Battle
Abortion Providers get a Win in Wisconsin
Abortion Providers get a Win in Wisconsin
“Clock Boy” Ahmed Mohamed Is Suing for $15 Million
“Clock Boy” Ahmed Mohamed Is Suing for $15 Million
Your profile matches an open legal position. Apply now!
Legal Job Listings
Download PDF

New York Gun Law Case Refused to be Heard by Supreme Court View Count: 463



 job title, keywords


 city, state, zip

The United States Supreme Court declined to hear a case that would partially determine whether the carrying of concealed weapons is a right granted by the constitution or something that can be decided at the state level. The issue of gun violence is a growing issue across America, and though the Supreme Court did not hear this particular case, several similar cases are coming up through lesser courts, and at least one of them is expected to be heard by the Court.

The New York Times reports that, on Monday, the Supreme Court justices turned down a case disputing a New York State law that requires those seeking permits for the carrying of concealed weapons in public to be able to demonstrate a special need for self-protection. The New York State law was upheld in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The justices gave no reason for declining to hear the case.

Get JD Journal in Your Mail
Subscribe to our FREE daily news alerts and get the latest updates on the most happening events in the legal, business, and celebrity world. You also get your daily dose of humor and entertainment!!

In December, United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh circuit, in Chicago, ruled on a similar law in Illinois, which was an outright ban on the carrying of guns in public. The Illinois law was struck down, and Judge Richard A. Posner, writing for the majority, explained that the ruling was required based on District of Columbia v. Heller, a previous Supreme Court case in which the District of Columbia attempted to prohibit guns from being kept in homes as self-defense.

Judge Posner also said “The Supreme Court made clear in Heller that it wasn’t going to make the right to bear arms depend on casualty counts.”

The case that was turned down by the Supreme Court was Kachalsky v. Cacace, and was brought to the courts by five New York residents that had been denied permits to carry handguns. The defendants in the case are four New York state judges who also serve as licensing officers.

New York State attorney general Eric T. Schniederman, who argued the case in the lower courts, released a statement on the case, saying “New York State has enacted sensible and effective regulations of concealed handguns, and this decision keeps those laws in place. This is a victory for families across New York who are rightly concerned about the scourge of gun violence that all too often plagues our communities.” In defending the New York State judges named in the case, Schniederman said that the “proper cause” provision in the New York law did not violate the Second Amendment as described by the Supreme Court.

New York Gun Law Case Refused to be Heard by Supreme Court by

  • Mike LVNV

    Bill of Rights Article 9: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
    Bill of Rights Article 1: “CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW
    RESPECTING: “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.”
    So I keep my arms in a holster under my coat. The controlling word is “keep.”
    Congress cannot make a law against my right to keep a weapon under my coat.
    Simple enough. Butt out you gun grabbing, anti Bill of Rights, law breakers.

  • Precarious

    Well, Mike, I hate to tell you this, but you’ve gone insane. You can’t even read or copy and paste accurately. You’ve really gone off the deep end.

    In addition to your glaring technical errors, might I also point out that the bible is another “bill of rights” of sorts which is painfully out of step with modern times. I suppose we should also blindly revere that work, yeah? That has clearly proven to be advisable.

  • mactire

    Great journalism! Kagan and Sotomayor look so handsome – couldn’t you find a photo a little more recent?

  • Ken

    Yeah, the NRA has a harder time buying off Supreme Court justices than it does Republican Congressmen.

  • Andrew Ostler

    The picture has been updated using the latest one I could find – Editor

  • Ed

    Wear it outside your coat or in a “visible” holster like law enforcement. The law is about concealment not bearing…feel free to carry you weapon in sight of all to see!

  • Jim Clark

    I am a proud gun owner in New Hampshire, and I firmly believe in an American citizen’s right to keep firearms in the home for the protection of life and property. I also firmly believe in a citizen’s right to carry when reasonable criteria have been met.
    But I can’t agree with distorting, or misquoting the U. S. Constitution. To start with, we do not have a “bill of rights” as do some other nations. You refer to “Bill of Rights Article 9″, but it is the 9th Amendment to our Constitution you are referring to.
    But the most egregiousness error is your partial rendition of the 2nd Amendment. It’s as though you missed the beginning of the sentence that starts off: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State … “. Those who study early American history know that the 2nd Amendment is about states rights. It is the specific part of the Constitution that grants the each state the right to maintain an armed militia. In fact, one of the concerns at the time (1789) was the fear of the central government overwhelming the states. There were those who wanted to make sure that the states had the ability to defend themselves militarily in the event the federal government became too abusive. There was a pervasive fear of the federal government maintaining a standing army, so the state militias were intended to be our nation’s means of military defense on land. Thus, the 2nd Amendment.
    I have to give you credit though for recognizing the 9th Amendment. Very few do. It is that part of the Constitution that gives the Supreme Court the power to establish our Constitutional right to protect our lives and property, a right that, as of yet, is not spelled out in the Constitution. That right would in fact be one of those “… others retained by the people.”

  • Cathryn Jacobson

    To Precarious – I would be more inclined to state that “modern times” is painfully out of step with with the moral values of the Bible and the values on which this country was built.

    Just because a segment of the population decides to go down that path where killing innocent babies is common place and alright with the world, but protecting your family is not, does not make it right.

    Those who praise the liberal attitudes of “modern times” have really lost touch with what constitutes personal responsibility, character, moral values and a sense of what is right and wrong.

  • justben

    The 2nd Amendment:

    “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.”

    “a Well Regulated”
    “Well Regulated”


    What part of well-regulated do you gun-nuts not understand?

  • Richard Jacquot

    The second amendment was included in the constitution on the request of the Southern States. Milicia were the means to control the slaves. No second amendment, no signature of the constitution. See University of Berkeley paper.

  • Brian

    Also to Mike, that isn’t even the right amendment. The second amendment reads”Amendment II

    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.”

    But times have changed. You could argue that since the text just says “arms” that it means I can bear any arm I want. If we all take the constitution literally then I should be able to mount a tank turret on my house/car, or carry an RPG on the subway. But of course this is not the case.

    The constitution was not meant to be a substitute for common sense or reason, and just because something is not spelled out there does not mean we can do whatever the heck we want.

    I’m sure nowhere does it say I can’t build a nuclear weapon in my backyard, but I wouldn’t argue that I should be able to either.

    At the time the document was written your “arms” would have been front loading muskets. Go get one of those and carry it around and I would have no problem with that.

  • Landlubber

    Precarious, The Bill of Rights in the U.S. constitution can be change legally with of 2/3 of the people or 3/4 of the congress. So any law that is passed against any of the Bill of Rights is illegal. Out of step or not that is the way it is supposed to work. You can change the bible anyway you want it is completely legal

  • Landlubber

    Justben The phrase “well-regulated” was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people’s arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

Tagged: , , , , , ,

Andrew Ostler Posted by on April 16, 2013. Filed under Legal News. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.



Related Posts: