Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.7
Site Design by Sekimori

« Good fellow moves to Mass., complies with gun laws, winds up sentenced to a year | Main | Good analysis of Operation Gunwalker »

District Ct decision in Kachalsky

Posted by David Hardy · 6 September 2011 11:18 AM

In PDF. It finds that Plaintiffs pass all procedural hurdles, but rules the NY firearm carry permit system constitutional. It construes Heller/McDonald narrowly, refusing to go much outside the "core right" of having firearms in the home, and pays little heed to what I think was the key argument: the NY system vests almost unbridled discretion in the licensing official, to find or deny "good cause" for the permit.

· Chicago aftermath

5 Comments | Leave a comment

Matthew Carberry | September 6, 2011 2:46 PM | Reply

Is this decision appealable or is it of primary use once we get a formal circuit split on "outside the home"?

rspock | September 6, 2011 3:37 PM | Reply

Looks to me like the court left no "standing" for appeal in order to leave the law intact.

Jacob | September 6, 2011 4:52 PM | Reply

Not at all unexpected.

RKV | September 6, 2011 9:39 PM | Reply

So even the minority agrees that "bear" means carry in Heller and McDonald describes RKBA as a "fundamental right" and no G D federal district court will defend the 2nd Amendment. I hope that the appeals court grows a pair.

kalashnikat | September 7, 2011 4:48 PM | Reply

If not to carry outside the home (keep), what the frack does "bear arms" mean?

Leave a comment