imported post
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
[align=left]1 concluded Bach had standing because he “ha[d] made a substantial showing that application for[/align]
[align=left]2 the permit would have been futile.” [font=TimesNewRoman,Italic]Bach v. Pataki, 289 F. Supp. 2d 217, 223 (N.D.N.Y. 2003)[/align]
[align=left]3 (citing [font=TimesNewRoman,Italic]Jackson-Bey v. Hanslmaier[/font], 115 F.3d 1091, 1096 (2d Cir. 1997)). The court held that[/align]
[align=left]4 Bach could “prove no set of facts which would entitle him to relief.” [font=TimesNewRoman,Italic]Id[/font]. at 229 (citing [font=TimesNewRoman,Italic]Valmonte[/align][/font]
[align=left]5 [font=TimesNewRoman,Italic]v. Bane[/font], 18 F.3d 992, 998 (2d Cir. 1994)). Specifically, the court explained that Bach could[/align]
[align=left]6 allege no constitutional “right to bear arms” because “the Second Amendment is not a source of[/align]
[align=left]7 individual rights,” [font=TimesNewRoman,Italic]id[/font]. at 225-26, and that New York’s licensing scheme did not violate the[/align]
[align=left]8 Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV because “the factor of residence has a substantial[/align]
[align=left]9 and legitimate connection with the purposes of the permit scheme such that the disparate[/align]
10 treatment of nonresidents is justifiable,” [font=TimesNewRoman,Italic]id[/font]. at 228 (citing [font=TimesNewRoman,Italic]People v. Perez[/font], 67 Misc. 2d 911, 912
[/font]
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
[align=left]1 concluded Bach had standing because he “ha[d] made a substantial showing that application for[/align]
[align=left]2 the permit would have been futile.” [font=TimesNewRoman,Italic]Bach v. Pataki, 289 F. Supp. 2d 217, 223 (N.D.N.Y. 2003)[/align]
[align=left]3 (citing [font=TimesNewRoman,Italic]Jackson-Bey v. Hanslmaier[/font], 115 F.3d 1091, 1096 (2d Cir. 1997)). The court held that[/align]
[align=left]4 Bach could “prove no set of facts which would entitle him to relief.” [font=TimesNewRoman,Italic]Id[/font]. at 229 (citing [font=TimesNewRoman,Italic]Valmonte[/align][/font]
[align=left]5 [font=TimesNewRoman,Italic]v. Bane[/font], 18 F.3d 992, 998 (2d Cir. 1994)). Specifically, the court explained that Bach could[/align]
[align=left]6 allege no constitutional “right to bear arms” because “the Second Amendment is not a source of[/align]
[align=left]7 individual rights,” [font=TimesNewRoman,Italic]id[/font]. at 225-26, and that New York’s licensing scheme did not violate the[/align]
[align=left]8 Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV because “the factor of residence has a substantial[/align]
[align=left]9 and legitimate connection with the purposes of the permit scheme such that the disparate[/align]
10 treatment of nonresidents is justifiable,” [font=TimesNewRoman,Italic]id[/font]. at 228 (citing [font=TimesNewRoman,Italic]People v. Perez[/font], 67 Misc. 2d 911, 912
[/font]