October 24, 2023
Srour v. New York City
Judge Cronan
“Under the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022), this Court considers, first, whether the conduct at issue is covered by the text of the Second Amendment, and if so, second, whether the challenged New York City regulations are “consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.†Id. at 2130. For reasons that follow, the Court finds that the conduct at issue—the possession of firearms for lawful purposes—plainly falls within the text of the Second Amendment. Indeed, the Second Amendment safeguards “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.†U.S. Const. amend. II. Thus, a presumption of constitutional protection is triggered. Further, Defendants have failed to show that the broad discretion afforded to licensing officials under subsections (a)(2) and (a)(9) of New York City Administrative Code Section 10-303, which imposes the permit requirement for rifles and shotguns, and the pre-amendment versions of Sections 3-03 and 5-10 of Title 38 of the RCNY, is consistent with the history and tradition of firearm regulation in this country. Each of these provisions allows for the denial of a firearm permit upon a City official’s determination of the applicant’s lack of “good moral character†or upon the official’s finding of “other good causeâ€â€”broad and unrestrained discretionary standards which Defendants have not shown to have any historical underpinning in our country. And because that unconstitutional exercise of discretion occurs every time a licensing official applies or has applied these provisions, they each are facially unconstitutional”.
Mr. Srour had been denied the ability to purchase rifles and handguns because he had speeding tickets, driver license suspensions/revocations, and had been arrested (but not convicted) for some crimes involving the operation of a jetski.
Me, l can’t wait how the idiots in the scotus decide US v. Rahimi. It’s gonna be fun, it looks like it will be open season on shooting one’s girlfriend or wife. 'Merica!
This one where the SCOTUS had to forcefully tell the 5th Circuit to stop trying to force the U.S. government to stop its “ghost gun” regulations while litigation is pending, and very clearly telling gun manufacturs they had to continue complying with current U.S. law.
Maybe that one will end up in your favor. But funny you forgot to give us an update like you do in other cases.
Me, l can’t wait how the idiots in the scotus decide US v. Rahimi. It’s gonna be fun, it looks like it will be open season on shooting one’s girlfriend or wife. 'Merica!
Assuming Rahimi did these things then why is he not being prosecuted yet? Some of those seem like the felonies which would ban him from owning a gun. And why is he not being remanded until his trial if he is dangerous?
Assuming Rahimi did these things then why is he not being prosecuted yet?
He is being prosecuted. He is under criminal indictment for aggravated assault with a firearm against three people, shooting into an occupied home, and felony possession of fentanyl. All in process still, I think. And reading on his history, it could be a ton more than that. Many more police reports of similar things. The details of the protective order aren’t good. He dragged her into a car, then (allegedly) shot at a bystander who witnessed it. Then when she escaped, he threatened to kill her.
For @jimatbeyond. Forget the constutionality and Federal law. Do you think this guy should a) have a gun, or b) not have a gun? E.g., if a gun store owner had this guy come in, and the owner just happened to know who he was, would it be OK if the gun store owner refused to sell him a gun? Just trying to set some boundaries.
Me, l can’t wait how the idiots in the scotus decide US v. Rahimi. It’s gonna be fun, it looks like it will be open season on shooting one’s girlfriend or wife. 'Merica!
https://www.vox.com/...gun-policy-us-rahimiAssuming Rahimi did these things then why is he not being prosecuted yet? Some of those seem like the felonies which would ban him from owning a gun. And why is he not being remanded until his trial if he is dangerous?
Who in the hell knows? If you didn’t notice it yet, our justice system is crazily flawed and it is highly selective in who it pursues, it prefers to focus on the non white and poor, and also on non violent drug offenses. Why? 'Cause that’s where the money is. Unfortunately, it tends not to focus on the most dangerous or lethal.
Are you going to listen to the live oral arguments on November 7? https://www.supremecourt.gov/…_arguments/live.aspx
You mean listen to some crazy, incredibly corrupt, and mentally deficient scotus justices ask questions as they bend over backwards to justify why a known wife beater and mentally ill guy should have the right to possess any firearm he wants?
Me, l can’t wait how the idiots in the scotus decide US v. Rahimi. It’s gonna be fun, it looks like it will be open season on shooting one’s girlfriend or wife. 'Merica!
**Assuming Rahimi did these things then why is he not being prosecuted yet? ** Some of those seem like the felonies which would ban him from owning a gun. And why is he not being remanded until his trial if he is dangerous?
He is.
Do you agree with Jim that people like Rahimi should have easy access to guns?
This one where the SCOTUS had to forcefully tell the 5th Circuit to stop trying to force the U.S. government to stop its “ghost gun” regulations while litigation is pending, and very clearly telling gun manufacturs they had to continue complying with current U.S. law.
Maybe that one will end up in your favor. But funny you forgot to give us an update like you do in other cases.
Me, l can’t wait how the idiots in the scotus decide US v. Rahimi. It’s gonna be fun, it looks like it will be open season on shooting one’s girlfriend or wife. 'Merica!
**Assuming Rahimi did these things then why is he not being prosecuted yet? ** Some of those seem like the felonies which would ban him from owning a gun. And why is he not being remanded until his trial if he is dangerous?
He is.
Do you agree with Jim that people like Rahimi should have easy access to guns?
No he should not have had access to guns. I am don’t think JMH ever said he should, but i could have missed it. I do think that prosecution and the courts should have remanded someone like this. Even if they took all his guns he could have easily gotten an illegal one. So remanding while waiting trial would have been the way to go.
I’m not going to read anything associated with people who debate a literal life and death issue like this. This is exactly the sort of organization, and extremism that I associate with you based on your posting:
Some account posts IN DIRECT RESPONSE to the events in Maine:
“I don’t care. I’m keeping it.” Posted in front of a hazy image of an armed guy flipping the bird.
Someone quote tweets it asking “If you’re wondering what the messaging is tonight from the gun lobby community, in the aftermath of the worst mass shooting in Maine’s history, here it is”
Jim’s stance is everyone is allowed to have any type of guns and as many guns as we want and if kids die then fuck them.
I’m glad I never bought one of his bikes.
Jim’s stance is everyone is allowed to have any type of guns and as many guns as we want and if kids die then fuck them.
I’m glad I never bought one of his bikes.
Here is an interesting amicus brief that basically says that Congress didn’t have the power to create 922 (g)(8).
-link to propaganda from the Firearms Policy Coalition-
Completely not surprised that you would embrace a fringe extremist group like the FPC.
For the folks who have not been following this case Jim, and the FPC, want to make it easier for violent domestic abusers to have access to guns
The Supreme Court is seriously considering whether domestic abusers have a right to own a gun, in US v. Rahimi - Vox
Man At Center Of Major Gun Rights Case Allegedly Shot At Woman In A Parking Lot | HuffPost Latest News
Zackey Rahimi of Gun Rights Case Shot at Woman, Per Police (jezebel.com)
