NYT articles I'd like to see----Texas abortion clinic safety measures

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday struck down parts of a restrictive New York law that limits the number of permits to carry a concealed weapon in the state to about 10 from what was once a high of roughly 40.


The decision concerned New York's Sullivan Law, that imposes strict requirements on the issuance of permits that allow New Yorkers to carry concealed, own, or even handle a handgun.

One part of the law requires the Judge of the applicant's County Family Court to individually process the application for the permit, including personal references, interviews by a law enforcement officer, an inspection of the security measures at the home where the handgun will be stored, training requirements that must take place before the applicant can legally even handle any pistol, and a process that takes at least 6 months and approximately $250 in fees paid to the County, in addition to any expenses incurred for safe storage or training.

The law is also interpreted arbitrarily across the State, with some Judges and Sheriffs placing additional limitations on permit holders: prohibitions on concealed carry, criteria for personal references, or burdensome requirements for storage. These limitations are often applied retroactively, such as requiring a permit holder to install a fixed safe after a rash of nearby burglaries in the neighborhood.

“We conclude,” Justice Breyer wrote, “that ... none of these provisions offer law enforcement benefits sufficient to justify the burdens upon access that each imposes. Each places a substantial obstacle in the path of citizens seeking the most common and effective self-defense tool, each constitutes an undue burden on that access, and each violates the Federal Constitution. Collectively, these provisions actively discourage New Yorkers from even applying for permission to exercise what Heller and MacDonald clarified was a fundamental individual right guaranteed under the Constitution against infringement by Federal or State and local governments.”
(Ed.---this is also a comment at the appropriate post today at Instapundit)

No comments: