On crying “uncle” and an unconstitutional law in New York

The Journal News, only willing to subject itself to so much pain, took down their gun owner database.

A suburban New York newspaper that outraged gun owners by posting the names and addresses of residents with handgun permits removed the information from its website Friday.

The Journal News took down the data just three days after the state enacted a gun control law that included privacy provisions for permit holders.

The provisions were a reaction to interactive maps the newspaper published on LoHud.com that pinpointed thousands of permit holders in Westchester and Rockland counties.

They gave some cockamamie excuse about the spirit of New York’s new gun law but the reality is likely that they realized the screwed up pretty badly.

Speaking of New York’s new gun law, it might be unconstitutional. Heller declared that handgun bans are unconstitutional. New York’s seven round magazine limit has rendered nearly every handgun that is not a revolver illegal. That is a de facto banishment of the hand guns, thus, unconstitutional.

Even though the New York law is not an outright ban of 9mm and .40-caliber handguns, it does make most of them inoperable, and thus would seem to fly in the face of the Supreme Court’s 2008 decision in Heller v. District of Columbia, in which the Court noted that “handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid.” Even more to the point, the Court also held that restrictions short of complete bans could also fail constitutional muster. Thus it ruled invalid the District’s requirement “that firearms in the home be rendered and kept inoperable at all times,” noting that doing so “makes it impossible for citizens to use them for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.” (The holding in Heller was applied to the states in McDonald v. City of Chicago.)

Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to On crying “uncle” and an unconstitutional law in New York

  1. Uke says:

    I feel inclined to point out that it is not merely *bans*, de facto or de jure, which are prohibited by the plain wording of the Constitution, but even *infringement*.

    Given that, I find it puzzling that we so easily accept a state doing what NY did.

    (Not us, but Americans in general.)

    • notamobster says:

      Local governments have been allowed to be more stringent from the beginning. They can’t do less than the feds, but more is acceptable.

      As regards 2A: So long as there is an avenue for the keeping and bearing, SCOTUS doesn’t seem to care what kind of hoops you have to jump through.

      • Greg B says:

        But since it is an “undue hardship” for voters to procure a valid I.D. for voting purposes, shouldn’t jumping through hoops to procure your firearm fall under the same umbrella?
        I mean, both are Constitutional Rights, correct?

        OK, OK, sarc/off

      • Uke says:

        Oh naturally they can often do more than the Feds, but that certainly has its limits.

        And that’s even before considering that the 1A specifically says “Congress shall make no law…” The 2A doesn’t say anything about Congress making or not making laws. It just says “… shall not be infringed.” Obvious implication being “… by anyone.”

        • notamobster says:

          We’re on the same boat, Uke (& paddling against the same tide, I’m afraid). SCOTUS, however disagrees.

          If the Constitution is a list of negative liberties (or limitations) upon the .gov, then it doesn’t apply the same, to the states.

          If it does apply the same to the states, then 10A is out the window.

          Are the states not intended to be free and independent entities of the federal republic?

          I realize that this makes the case for liberals in places like NYC, DC, & Chicago. I’m playing a bit of devil’s advocate, here.

          • Greg B says:

            But if the States are bound by the supposed separation of church & state thinking, wouldn’t it follow “not be infringed” apply as well?