Please read lines 5thru 7 of the courts ruling ask ask yourselves if DC v Heller opens any doors

18 Defendants moved to dismiss, and the district court granted the motion. The court

1 concluded Bach had standing because he “ha[d] made a substantial showing that application for

2 the permit would have been futile.”
Bach v. Pataki, 289 F. Supp. 2d 217, 223 (N.D.N.Y. 2003)

3 (citing
Jackson-Bey v. Hanslmaier, 115 F.3d 1091, 1096 (2d Cir. 1997)). The court held that

4 Bach could “prove no set of facts which would entitle him to relief.”
Id. at 229 (citing Valmonte

v. Bane, 18 F.3d 992, 998 (2d Cir. 1994)). Specifically, the court explained that Bach could

6 allege no constitutional “right to bear arms” because “the Second Amendment is not a source of

7 individual rights,”
id. at 225-26, and that New York’s licensing scheme did not violate the

8 Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV because “the factor of residence has a substantial

9 and legitimate connection with the purposes of the permit scheme such that the disparate

10 treatment of nonresidents is justifiable,”
id. at 228 (citing People v. Perez, 67 Misc. 2d 911, 912