Quoted from Foosel

I apologize for my lack of clarity in my original question.

You said your experience indicates we are a minimum of 10 years away from the SCOTUS hearing a Second Amendment case.  

We are now in a situation where there is a split on a major constutional issue between the circuits (the 9th and the 2nd).

Maloney, if I can recall correctly is knocking on the courts door as we speak.  Yet this case is never mentioned in the media and is rarely mentioned on pro gun sites.  I originally suspected it was because the gun community was not thrilled with the idea of a nunchuk case going to the SCOTUS to decide the incorporation issue.

Therefore, my question becomes, why is the overall discussion on this case so reticent when it could be the first case to make it to the SCOTUS.

Foosel:
   You have asked the question I was hoping you were not going to ask. For those not familiar with the case, I've copied the recent decision, to the bottom of this response.
   As you are aware, the decision contradicts that of the 9th Circuit Court, disallowing the application of the 14th Amendment. The original case name was Maloney v Cuomo. The appeal, to SCOTUS, if filed, will be carried as Maloney v. Rice.
   My personal preference would have been to have at least 2, preferably 3, decisions supporting the 9th Circuit Court decision, before we brought the case to the Supreme Court of the US (SCOTUS) and that each of those decisions be arrived at on similar terms, i.e. firearms.
   The contradiction of the 9th Circuit's decision suggests that the 2nd Circuit's decision will be an impetus to get to SCOTUS sooner and less ready, rather than later and better prepared. As I think I've stated, in earlier postings, it's best to go to SCOTUS with a clear, simple, one issue situation. Maloney has not only complicated the issue, by contradictory stare decisis (court ruling) but by mudding the waters, through the introduction of nunchukas (chuka sticks) and going directly for the licensing/legality/Constitutional issues on a (perhaps too) broad basis.
   Most of us were hoping to have a new SCOTUS case based solely on firearms, which, then, later, could be naturally applied to all forms of personal defense tools. Chukas, unfortunately, have a less "acceptable" political image than firearms. Most folks, when they think of chuka sticks, think of bloody violence, gangs and B-grade movies, along with fighting stars and similar items. The imagery, for these, is, at best, gory, not of personal or family defense.
   It's my feeling that the whole situation should be held, until after the NRA-based CA and IL challenges have been resolved. They should give us a uniform (firearms only, even if contradictory) backgorund, for a SCOTUS review, therefore, in my opinion, our best shot.
   Will Maloney appeal, to SCOTUS? I hope not but I suspect so.
   Consequently, like most other things, there's good and there's bad, no matter which way you turn.
Gary

MALONEY DECISION:
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Governor David Paterson is automatically substituted for former Governor Eliot Spitzer as a defendant in this case. (Spitzer was automatically substituted, for Pataki, who was previously substituted, for Cuomo)
07-0581-cv Maloney v. Cuomo
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
______________
August Term, 2008
(Argued: December 15, 2008 Decided: January 28, 2009)
Docket No. 07-0581-cv
______________
JAMES M. MALONEY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
—v.—
ANDREW CUOMO, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the State of New York, DAVID
PATERSON, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of New York, KATHLEEN A. RICE, in her official capacity as District Attorney of the County of Nassau, and their successors, Defendants-Appellees.
______________
B e f o r e:
POOLER, SOTOMAYOR, and KATZMANN, Circuit Judges.
______________
Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Spatt, J.) dated January 17, 2007, granting defendants-appellees Andrew Cuomo and David Paterson’s motion to dismiss and defendant-appellee Kathleen A. Rice’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, and from an order dated May 14, 2007, denying plaintiff-appellant’s motion for reconsideration. Affirmed.
There are two sections of the New York Penal Law numbered 265.00(14). 1
______________
JAMES M. MALONEY, appearing pro se, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
KAREN HUTSON, Deputy County Attorney (Lorna B. Goodman, County Attorney, on the brief) for Defendant- Appellee Kathleen A. Rice, Nassau County District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y.
______________
PER CURIAM:
Plaintiff-appellant James Maloney was arrested at his home on August 24, 2000, and charged with possessing a chuka stick in violation of N.Y. Penal Law § 265.01(1). A “chuka stick” (or “nunchaku”) is defined as any device designed primarily as a weapon, consisting of two or more lengths of a rigid material joined together by a thong, rope or chain in such a manner as to allow free movement of a portion of the device while held in the hand and capable of being rotated in such a manner as to inflict serious injury upon a person by striking or choking.
Id. § 265.00(14). This charge was dismissed on January 28, 2003, and Appellant pleaded guilty 1 to one count of disorderly conduct. As part of the plea, he agreed to the destruction of the nunchaku seized from his home.
Appellant filed the initial complaint in this action on February 18, 2003, and then an amended complaint on September 3, 2005, seeking a declaration that N.Y. Penal Law §§ 265.00 through 265.02 are unconstitutional insofar as they punish possession of nunchakus in one’s home. The district court dismissed the amended complaint as against the New York State Appellant makes no argument in his brief concerning the district court’s dismissal of his 2 claims against the Attorney General and the Governor. We therefore deem any challenges to that aspect of the district court’s judgment waived. See Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 541 n.1 (2d Cir. 2005).
Attorney General and the Governor for lack of standing, concluding that neither official is responsible for enforcing the statutes at issue. The district court granted defendant Nassau County District Attorney Kathleen Rice’s motion for judgment on the pleadings in relevant part because the Second Amendment does not apply to the states and therefore imposed no limitations on New York’s ability to prohibit the possession of nunchakus. Appellant moved for reconsideration on the ground that the district court had failed to consider certain other claims raised in his amended complaint; the district court denied that motion.
On appeal, Appellant challenges only the district court’s dismissal of his claims against Rice. He argues, inter alia, that New York’s statutory ban on the possession of nunchakus violates (1) the Second Amendment because it infringes on his right to keep and bear arms, and (2) the Fourteenth Amendment because it lacks a rational basis. Neither of these arguments has any merit.
The Second Amendment provides: “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.” US Const. amend. II. The Supreme Court recently held that this confers an individual right on citizens to keep and bear arms. See District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 2799 (200. It is settled law, however, that the Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government seeks to impose on this right. See, e.g., Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 265 (1886) (stating that the Second Amendment “is a limitation only upon the power of congress and the national government, and not upon that of the state”); Bach v. Pataki, 408 F.3d 75, 84, 86 (2d Cir. 2005) (holding “that the Second Amendment’s ‘right to keep and bear arms’ imposes a limitation on only federal, not state, legislative efforts” and noting that this outcome was compelled by Presser), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 1174 (2006). Heller, a case involving a challenge to the District of Columbia’s general prohibition on handguns, does not invalidate this longstanding principle. See Heller, 128 S. Ct. at 2813 n.23 (noting that the case did not present the question of whether the Second Amendment applies to the states). And to the extent that Heller might be read to question the continuing validity of this principle, we “must follow Presser” because “[w]here, as here, a Supreme Court precedent ‘has direct application in a case, yet appears to rest on reasons rejected in some other line of decisions, the Court of Appeals should follow the case which directly controls, leaving to the Supreme Court the prerogative of overruling its own decisions.’” Bach, 408 F.3d at 86 (quoting Rodriguez de Quijas v. Shearson/Am. Express, Inc., 490 U.S. 477, 484 (1989)) (alteration marks omitted); see also State Oil Co. v. Khan, 522 U.S. 3, 20 (1997). Thus, NY Penal Law §§ 265.00 through 265.02 do not violate the Second Amendment.
The Fourteenth Amendment similarly provides no relief for Appellant. “Legislative acts that do not interfere with fundamental rights or single out suspect classifications carry with them a strong presumption of constitutionality and must be upheld if ‘rationally related to a legitimate state interest.’” Beatie v. City of New York, 123 F.3d 707, 711 (2d Cir. 1997) (quoting City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., Inc., 473 U.S. 432, 440 (1985)). We will uphold legislation if we can identify “some reasonably conceivable state of facts that could provide a rational basis for the legislative action. In other words, to escape invalidation by being declared irrational, the legislation under scrutiny merely must find some footing in the realities of the subject addressed by the law.” Id. at 712 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
The legislative history of section 265.00 makes plain that the ban on possession of nunchakus imposed by section 265.01(1) is supported by a rational basis. Indeed, as Appellant concedes, when the statute was under consideration, various parties submitted statements noting the highly dangerous nature of nunchakus. For example, New York’s Attorney General, Louis J. Lefkowitz, asserted that nunchakus “ha[ve] apparently been widely used by muggers and street gangs and ha[ve] been the cause of many serious injuries.” Mem. from Attorney Gen. Louis J. Lefkowitz to the Governor (Apr. 8, 1974). And the sponsor of the bill, Richard Ross, stated that “[w]ith a minimum amount of practice, [the nunchaku] may be effectively used as a garrote, bludgeon, thrusting or striking device. The [nunchaku] is designed primarily as a weapon and has no purpose other than to maim or, in some instances, kill.” See N.Y. Penal Law § 265.00, practice commentary, definitions (“Chuka stick”) (quoting Letter of Assemblyman Richard C. Ross to the Counsel to the Governor (1974)).
Appellant does not dispute that nunchakus can be highly dangerous weapons. Rather, his principal argument is that section 265.01(1) prevents martial artists from using nunchakus as part of a training program. But the fact that nunchakus might be used as part of a martial-arts training program cannot alter our analysis. Where, as here, a statute neither interferes with a fundamental right nor singles out a suspect classification, “we will invalidate [that statute] on substantive due process grounds only when a plaintiff can demonstrate that there is no rational relationship between the legislation and a legitimate legislative purpose.” Beatie, 123 F.3d at 711. Appellant has not carried this burden. Consequently, in light of the legislature’s view of the danger posed by nunchakus, we find that the prohibition against the possession of nunchakus created by NY Penal Law § 265.01(1) is supported by a rational basis. We have considered Appellant’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.
Appellant’s pending motions to strike defendant Kathleen Rice’s brief and material in her July 28, 2008 Rule 28(j) letter are hereby DENIED.

When did this Hunting authorization from NYPD go in effect?? I never received any notice about not being able to transport my firearm's in a locked box out of NYC.

Hi:
   The "sportsman's" category of handgun restriction has been in effect, in NYC, for more than 40 years. The requirement, for NYC residents, to carry their handgun(s), in a locked box, while in NYC, applies only while you are in NYC. Once you are outside the NYC borders, your handgun license becomes a carry license, just like everyone else's license, which has a "C" prefix to the number.
   NYC also issues license with a "P" prefix, indicating that they are premises-only licenses but, typical of NYC, they then add a "Target and Hunting" endorsement, allowing use and carry of the firearms, off premises, to ranges and for hunting. You must, of course, also have a hunting license, in a category which allows handgun hunting and be in or headed to/from an area which allows handgun hunting.
   Holler, if you have any other questions.
Gary

Quoted from Gary_Hungerford

Hi:
   The "sportsman's" category of handgun restriction has been in effect, in NYC, for more than 40 years. The requirement, for NYC residents, to carry their handgun(s), in a locked box, while in NYC, applies only while you are in NYC. Once you are outside the NYC borders, your handgun license becomes a carry license, just like everyone else's license, which has a "C" prefix to the number.
   NYC also issues license with a "P" prefix, indicating that they are premises-only licenses but, typical of NYC, they then add a "Target and Hunting" endorsement, allowing use and carry of the firearms, off premises, to ranges and for hunting. You must, of course, also have a hunting license, in a category which allows handgun hunting and be in or headed to/from an area which allows handgun hunting.
   Holler, if you have any other questions.
Gary

I am not sure I understand what you are referring to, but NYC restricted home licenses have no prefixes, the license number is strictly numeric based on the year of issue. For example it could be something like  2008000156 .

According to NYPD web site and my conversations with 1pp, NYC restricted home license is to be used within NYC ONLY.  Handgun must be transported strictly to a NYC range and back in a locked container.

1PP issues “hunting authorizations” which technically allows to use handgun during hunting and carry it while hunting. It also allows transport outside of NYC to a shooting range or hunting location. Hunting authorization is LITERALY green cardboard, about 1.5-2 inches wide and like 5 inches long. Someone at 1PP licensing department types on a typewriter name and address of the license holder and puts licensing stamp on it. That’s it.

Quoted from NewYorkkie

When did this Hunting authorization from NYPD go in effect?? I never received any notice about not being able to transport my firearm's in a locked box out of NYC.

According to NYPD it is your responsibility to know the law and any changes to it. They do not tell you anything. You cannot transport your handgun outside of NYC if you have restricted home and no hunting authorizations. Go to 1PP licensing and ask for one, it takes 2 minutes and its free.

I think to obtain a CCW permit in NYC you'll need to get shot more than3 times within 2inches of a vital organ. If then and only if then, you're allow to carry to and from the range without a clip in the magazine.

Quoted from Vertiviper

I think to obtain a CCW permit in NYC you'll need to get shot more than3 times within 2inches of a vital organ. If then and only if then, you're allow to carry to and from the range without a clip in the magazine.

there is no ccw in NYC, period. There is business carry but no ccw for people.

Quoted from borisny

there is no ccw in NYC, period. There is business carry but no ccw for people.

I was being facetious  

Quoted, from borisny:
     I am not sure I understand what you are referring to, but NYC restricted home licenses have no prefixes, the license number is strictly numeric based on the year of issue. For example it could be something like  2008000156 .

According to NYPD web site and my conversations with 1pp, NYC restricted home license is to be used within NYC ONLY.  Handgun must be transported strictly to a NYC range and back in a locked container.

1PP issues “hunting authorizations” which technically allows to use handgun during hunting and carry it while hunting. It also allows transport outside of NYC to a shooting range or hunting location. Hunting authorization is LITERALY green cardboard, about 1.5-2 inches wide and like 5 inches long. Someone at 1PP licensing department types on a typewriter name and address of the license holder and puts licensing stamp on it. That’s it.

    I guess the license has changed, since the last time I saw a NYC-issued one. They used to have "P" and "C" prefixes, indicating Premises or Carry (restricted, of course, unless you had a friend, in the right place). I do remember that, quite a few years ago, they converted almost all of their licenses to "premises" category, with "endorsements," for those who wanted to use a range or go hunting. That must, also, have been when they changed the rules. I've not, obviously, kept abreast of NYC's regs. Thanks, for the update.
Gary

If i had a house, let say in Orange County, and lived there and in NYC every other day or whenever I felt like, they would not consider it to be 2 residences?

Short and sweet. Your primary abode is where you spend the most time, and where your ID paper trail traces back to, i.e., drivers license, credit cards, address that your employer has, bank statements, frequently paid utility bills, etc. They are aware of the games people play with dual residences. If you get caught, and you will, there goes your license for good.

Quoted from tpaw

If i had a house, let say in Orange County, and lived there and in NYC every other day or whenever I felt like, they would not consider it to be 2 residences?

Short and sweet. Your primary abode is where you spend the most time, and where your ID paper trail traces back to, i.e., drivers license, credit cards, address that your employer has, bank statements, frequently paid utility bills, etc. They are aware of the games people play with dual residences. If you get caught, and you will, there goes your license for good.

The funny thing is: NYC handgun permit application and all paperwork talks abut "NYS resident" but does not mention "fulltime" anywhwre.