The Liberal Gun Club Amicus Brief: New York City's Transport Ban Fails All Heightened Scrutiny

[friendly_iconoclast]

https://theliberalgunclub.com/the-liberal-gun-club-amicus-brief-new-york-citys-transport-ban-fails-all-heightened-scrutiny/

Newton, MA, 05/14/2019- Today The Liberal Gun Club issued an Amicus Brief to the Supreme Court in support of the petitioners in the case of new York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc., v. The City of New York and the New York City Police Department- License Division, which challenges a law that unconstitutionally restricts when and where New York City residents can transport their firearms. New York City’s transport ban fails all heightened scrutiny and substantially burdens the lawful conduct of citizens.

As has been found in a recent case regarding safe and legal abortions, laws that restrict the rights of citizens must be narrowly tailored to be the least intrusive means of serving the governments interest. In the current case before the court the law has been used as a bludgeon rather than as a scalpel, resulting in the inability of NYC Citizens to transport their firearms in any manner, whether it be to their second home or training class, putting them at unnecessary risk and unable to gain levels of proficiency that all other states, including those that have heavy regulation, are available to them.

This law also prevents the citizens of New York City from carrying their firearm in the other 38 states that they could otherwise carry in, if not for this law, applying their laws nationally, regardless of local regulations.

In addition, although it’s not found in the brief, this law misses addressing the root causes of violence by a mile. Rather than working on the real issues behind violence such as toxic masculinity, the generational oppression of minorities, and a lack of universal healthcare, including mental health care, this law is used as a way to substantially impact those gun owners who abide by the law.

A *PDF copy of the LGC brief can be found here:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-280/99732/20190514165229684_NYSRPA%20v%20NYC%20Amicus%20Brief%20of%20The%20Liberal%20Gun%20Club.pdf

It's good to see that others have noticed (even if only in passing) the similarity of the mindsets of the reproduction slavers and those phobic of firearms and firearms owners.

[hlthe2b]

1. I've never known a woman's pregnant uterus--or recently evacuated one following an abortion, to pose

a risk to anyone on a crowded train or subway. The same argument can not be made--whether through accidental or intentional discharge-- for those carrying guns in the same captive space.

The comparison--even if you try to make legal argument similarities-- is inappropriate as hell.

[friendly_iconoclast]

3. That concern was addressed in the brief itself, which you apparently did not read:

From page 27 of the PDF linked

19 C. In Imposing the Transport Ban, New York City Failed to Consider Unloaded and Secured Transport, Which is Widely Employed by Other Jurisdictions, and Which Could Have Been Readily Implemented


Like this Court did in McCullen, we look to other potential regulatory means of addressing the City’s claimed interest. The transport ban is ostensibly designed to promote public safety by limiting the presence of handguns on city streets. Yet, a variety of jurisdictions, including some of the most restrictive ones in the nation, address this problem, not by banning transport entirely, but by imposing requirements to transport guns unloaded and in a secure location, like a locked box. Importantly, whether or not these alternative means are themselves valid and constitutional approaches under the Second Amendment, the fact that the City did not even consider them as potential alternatives says all the Court needs to know about the transportation ban’s failure under any form of heightened scrutiny. We now consider some of the alternatives that the City did not. ...

They go on to cite California, New Jersey, and Maryland state laws, none of which ccould be considered remotely
gun-friendly and all of which allow transport of guns as described.

Once again, prohibitionists cite exaggerated or non-existant 'dangers' as reasons for their desired bans- much like the
fetus fetishists:

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/05/wendy-vitter-abortion

Trump Judge Who Endorsed Theory Abortion Causes Cancer Confirmed By Senate

[gejohnston]

4. They threw in a lot of progressive buzzwords,

progressive is not liberal. However, they are doing more for my side than the NRA that pisses money away on Wayne's wardrobe.

The people in question, licensed gun owners, do not threaten or pose a risk to anyone. It is the people who get their guns from their nose candy wholesaler that do. They are not affected nor give a shit about the law.

Almost everyone exercises their 2A rights without taking a human life. Only the intellectually dishonest or ignorant of grade seven biology can say the same about abortion. Doesn't mean I'm antichoice, just accepting the science and ethical baggage that goes with it.

[sarisataka]

2. Just a couple days ago

The question was asked

How is it possible for a state to make something illegal in another jusidiction?
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10142317592

Replies were against such a practice without exception
In this case a city is applying their law on a national level. Will the replies be, hypocritically, 'that's different'?

[Alea]

5. Yes, they will be, hypocritically, 'that's different'

If the issue wasn't so important, for both issues, it would be comical.

[Alea]

6. My state was like this until a few years ago

You could ask a LEO how to legally transport guns to the range and they couldn't tell you. They would simply tell you to put them in the trunk, unloaded, and no one would bother you if you get stopped, but it wasn't law and you couldn't be sure, or be assured of unmolested passage. Now we have laws in the books regarding transportation of guns to a range or anywhere else. No one has to fear the discretion of any particular LEO that may pull you over. Many States now have laws on the books so there is no more ambiguity.

NYC thrives on keeping it's citizens afraid to own or transport guns. It makes more people just say "Oh well, I'll just not take my guns when I travel", or "I just won't go to the range", or better yet, "I just won't own guns at all since it's a pain in the rear knowing whats right or wrong".