Jump to content


Photo

Kwong v de Blasio (fka Kwong v Bloomberg)


  • Please log in to reply
72 replies to this topic

#1 mauserme

    Eliminating the element of surprise one bill at a time.

  • Admin
  • 20,574 posts
  • Joined: 20-February 09

Posted 12 July 2011 - 06:59 PM

Excerpted from the motion:

New York City's $340 fee for a 3-year "Residence Premises" handgun license far exceeds
the fee charged by any other U.S. jurisdiction for comparable licensure. Even within the State of
New York, most other residents pay no more than $10 for a handgun license – but State law
exempts residents of New York City from this protection, instead authorizing the City to impose
fees without limit. The only apparent purpose for this disparate State-law treatment is to permit the
City to use prohibitive license fees to
discourage people from exercising their constitutional right to
keep and bear arms. However, the purpose of suppressing the exercise of a constitutional right is no
legitimate purpose at all. New York City's $340 fee is unconstitutionally excessive in its own right,
and the New York State law that exempts City residents from its protection against prohibitive fees
violates the Equal Protection Clause.

.

Point I explains that the right to keep a handgun in the home for self-defense is part of the

"core" of the Second Amendment's protections – and one that the Amendment "elevates above all

other interests." District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 635 (2008). In addition, the right to

arms is a "fundamental" right that "is fully applicable against the States." McDonald v. Chicago,

561 U.S. ___, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3042, 3026 (2010). Simply put, the Supreme Court's decisions in

Heller and McDonald subject New York's handgun licensing laws to a much more rigorous

standard of scrutiny than they have faced in the past.

.

Point II shows that the $340 fee, N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 10-131(a)(2), is impermissible

standing on its own. The recurring $340 fee is not nominal when viewed in its personal and noncommercial

context. Moreover, even if the fee amount were nominal, the City set the fee without

regard to administrative costs – and plainly, the fee is not calculated to defray them.

.

Point III explains that the provision of State law that authorizes the City to impose its

prohibitive fee, N.Y. Penal Law § 400.00(14), violates the Equal Protection Clause to the extent it

authorizes the City to set a fee higher than $10. This classification triggers strict scrutiny because it

substantially burdens the ability to keep a handgun in one's home – which is a recognized "core" of

the Second Amendment's protection – and also because it reflects the impermissible legislative

purpose of discouraging lawful gun ownership. There is no compelling interest that could justify

the decision to protect most State residents with a $10 fee limit, while providing no protection at all

to residents of New York City. And even if there were, the very existence of less-restrictive

approaches shows that the disparate burden is not narrowly tailored.



Edited to attach the complaint.

Attached Files


.
 
Link to ILGA House Audio/Video..........Link to ILGA Senate Audio/Video ..........Advanced Digital Media Link ..........Blue Room Stream Link

 

We are hard-pressed on every side, yet not crushed; we are perplexed, but not in despair; persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down, but not destroyed—...
Therefore we do not lose heart. Even though our outward man is perishing, yet the inward man is being renewed day by day. For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, is working for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory, while we do not look at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen. For the things which are seen are temporary, but the things which are not seen are eternal.   (2 Corinthians 4 NIV)
 

On 5/25/2017, Superintendent Eddie Johnson predicted a 50% reduction is Chicago violence within 3 years of SB1722 becoming law.  The bill was signed into law on 6/23/2017. The clock is now ticking.


#2 C0untZer0

    Contributing Member in Arrears

  • Members
  • 13,370 posts
  • Joined: 14-October 11

Posted 30 January 2013 - 07:31 AM

Orals for Kwong are coming up on Friday.

It's a very important case, I don't really think it's going our way, Jensen didn't challenge the very existence of a fee - just that the fee doesn't withstand strict scrutiny, and then he threw in an eqaul protection argument at the end there.

If it doesn't go our way, it opens the door for gun control via exorbitant fees.

Illinois has led the way with McDonald, Shepard/Moore, Ezell, Gowder and other cases, we may see a Kwong redux coming from Illinois and this time chalenge the very existence of the program behind the fee - the program which creates the fees (for example), as unconstitutional, and have the EP argument as primary right from the start.
“Most gun control arguments miss the point. If all control boils fundamentally to force, how can one resist aggression without equal force? How can a truly “free” state exist if the individual citizen is enslaved to the forceful will of individual or organized aggressors?
 
 It cannot.” 

 

― Tiffany Madison― 


#3 Gray Peterson

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 426 posts
  • Joined: 02-August 04

Posted 30 January 2013 - 05:36 PM

Some things are meant for SCOTUS.

#4 lockman

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,972 posts
  • Joined: 07-July 06

Posted 30 January 2013 - 06:08 PM

Orals for Kwong are coming up on Friday.

It's a very important case, I don't really think it's going our way, Jensen didn't challenge the very existence of a fee - just that the fee doesn't withstand strict scrutiny, and then he threw in an eqaul protection argument at the end there.

If it doesn't go our way, it opens the door for gun control via exorbitant fees.

Illinois has led the way with McDonald, Shepard/Moore, Ezell, Gowder and other cases, we may see a Kwong redux coming from Illinois and this time chalenge the very existence of the program behind the fee - the program which creates the fees (for example), as unconstitutional, and have the EP argument as primary right from the start.


If SCOTUS allows it then the door is open to re-institute the poll tax.

"We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately."
-- Benjamin Franklin, 1776

Life Member NRA, ISRA,  CCRKBA, GOA, & SAF


#5 C0untZer0

    Contributing Member in Arrears

  • Members
  • 13,370 posts
  • Joined: 14-October 11

Posted 30 January 2013 - 06:38 PM

So Gray are you saying SCOTUS may except Kwong and strike NYC's fee based on EP, even though Jensen didn't have it at the core of his case?
“Most gun control arguments miss the point. If all control boils fundamentally to force, how can one resist aggression without equal force? How can a truly “free” state exist if the individual citizen is enslaved to the forceful will of individual or organized aggressors?
 
 It cannot.” 

 

― Tiffany Madison― 


#6 Gray Peterson

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 426 posts
  • Joined: 02-August 04

Posted 30 January 2013 - 07:07 PM

So Gray are you saying SCOTUS may except Kwong and strike NYC's fee based on EP, even though Jensen didn't have it at the core of his case?


It doesn't matter if it's core to the case. SCOTUS can resolve on any ground, including EP.

#7 C0untZer0

    Contributing Member in Arrears

  • Members
  • 13,370 posts
  • Joined: 14-October 11

Posted 30 January 2013 - 07:16 PM

Accept not except :blush:
“Most gun control arguments miss the point. If all control boils fundamentally to force, how can one resist aggression without equal force? How can a truly “free” state exist if the individual citizen is enslaved to the forceful will of individual or organized aggressors?
 
 It cannot.” 

 

― Tiffany Madison― 


#8 Rail

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 210 posts
  • Joined: 15-February 08

Posted 31 January 2013 - 03:53 AM

Orals for Kwong are coming up on Friday.

It's a very important case, I don't really think it's going our way, Jensen didn't challenge the very existence of a fee - just that the fee doesn't withstand strict scrutiny, and then he threw in an eqaul protection argument at the end there.

If it doesn't go our way, it opens the door for gun control via exorbitant fees.

Illinois has led the way with McDonald, Shepard/Moore, Ezell, Gowder and other cases, we may see a Kwong redux coming from Illinois and this time chalenge the very existence of the program behind the fee - the program which creates the fees (for example), as unconstitutional, and have the EP argument as primary right from the start.


If SCOTUS allows it then the door is open to re-institute the poll tax.


Poll tax is not the same thing. The 24th Amendment to the Constitution explicitly prohibits poll taxes, clear, cut, and dry. This case has to do with whether or not a nominal fee for owning a handgun passes whatever scrutiny is appropriate via the 2nd Amendment. I agree that in the long run, it's better to challenge the whole concept of user fees rather than simply unreasonable fees, but the two most important things right now in securing the core of the RKBA is getting "bear" to mean indiscriminate carry outside the home (shall-issue) and features-based self-loading rifle bans in various states tossed under the "common use" interpretation from Heller.

IANAL

Edited by Rail, 31 January 2013 - 03:53 AM.


#9 gangrel

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,121 posts
  • Joined: 13-April 11

Posted 31 January 2013 - 07:06 AM

Accept not except :blush:


Well, you never know...they might except it... ;)

NRA Life Member

NRA Certified Range Safety Officer

NRA Certified Instructor - Basic Pistol, PPIH, PPOH, Rifle, Shotgun, Home Firearm Safety
ISP Approved Firearm Concealed Carry Instructor

Utah CCW Instructor


#10 lockman

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,972 posts
  • Joined: 07-July 06

Posted 31 January 2013 - 07:09 AM

The 24th amendment is a symptom of our current way of thinking. Just pass something to correct a problem that the solution is already available but ignored.

In principle a poll tax is a prior restraint if not a operational ban on the free exercise of a right, just like license fees to keep or bear arms.

"We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately."
-- Benjamin Franklin, 1776

Life Member NRA, ISRA,  CCRKBA, GOA, & SAF


#11 C0untZer0

    Contributing Member in Arrears

  • Members
  • 13,370 posts
  • Joined: 14-October 11

Posted 31 January 2013 - 08:20 AM

The definition of an unreasonable fee seems to be determined by looking at the cost of a regulatory program and making a judgment about whether the fees basically cover the cost of the program. At least that appears to be what has taken place in Kwong so far.

That creates a catch 22 which I am sure anti-gun politicians are well aware of.

The catch is, if any government body can create an administrative organization to run a program with regard to firearms, and the fees can only be challenged based on if they generally cover the cost of the program or not, it’s very easy for politicians to put up obstacles to gun ownership by creating bloated and expensive bureaucracies to administer things like FOID and gun permits. There simply is no upper limit to how costly and inefficient government programs can be; living in Illinois should have taught us that.

Edited by C0untZer0, 31 January 2013 - 08:22 AM.

“Most gun control arguments miss the point. If all control boils fundamentally to force, how can one resist aggression without equal force? How can a truly “free” state exist if the individual citizen is enslaved to the forceful will of individual or organized aggressors?
 
 It cannot.” 

 

― Tiffany Madison― 


#12 C0untZer0

    Contributing Member in Arrears

  • Members
  • 13,370 posts
  • Joined: 14-October 11

Posted 01 February 2013 - 06:17 PM

Does anyone have the orals for Kwong v Bloomberg ?
“Most gun control arguments miss the point. If all control boils fundamentally to force, how can one resist aggression without equal force? How can a truly “free” state exist if the individual citizen is enslaved to the forceful will of individual or organized aggressors?
 
 It cannot.” 

 

― Tiffany Madison― 


#13 Jfl0

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 552 posts
  • Joined: 06-January 13

Posted 01 February 2013 - 08:31 PM

To me, the issue is simple. No taxes for constitutional rights. PERIOD.
_____________________________
For over 400 years, my ancestors have lived, died, fought for, and bled for this country, and for the constitution. I will take a stand against people who wish to undue this.
_____________________________

#14 BobPistol

    Member

  • Members
  • 8,927 posts
  • Joined: 24-February 13

Posted 28 February 2013 - 08:18 AM

A poll tax has something in common with the Kwong case.

You are being charged a tax, a fee, or some other way of getting money out of your pocket, for exercising a constitutional right.

Imagine if we had to pay a license fee to make a speech in one's own back yard. The courts would strike that down in a heartbeat, wouldn't they?

So the same argument goes for the 2nd amendment.

Edited by BobPistol, 28 February 2013 - 08:18 AM.

The Second Amendment of the Constitution protects the rest.

#15 Professor Wheezy

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 649 posts
  • Joined: 03-April 12

Posted 28 February 2013 - 08:28 AM

I belleve poll taxes and literacy tests for voting were done away with in the Civil Rigths Bills of the 60's. I find it hard to see the difference for any type of gun related license. The costs of running an election and providing people with the opportunity to vote is borne by the tax paying public. Why should the same public not cover the cost of an equal Constitutiional Right. Why hasn't this angle been worked even for the FOID card. i know $10 10 years is not a big deal BUT CCW permits are typically more. They aren't like driver's license. which is a privilege NOT a right.
It's About Time

#16 RandyWakeman

  • Members
  • 8 posts
  • Joined: 06-January 13

Posted 28 February 2013 - 01:34 PM

http://ia700608.us.a...535.docket.html

It was decided long ago. What am I missing?

Edited by RandyWakeman, 28 February 2013 - 01:36 PM.


#17 Hatchet

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 2,936 posts
  • Joined: 17-August 10

Posted 28 February 2013 - 02:11 PM

I think its being reheard at a higher level of court. Is that correct?
"Loyalty to the country always. Loyalty to the government when it deserves it."
"You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life." (Winston Churchill).

#18 C0untZer0

    Contributing Member in Arrears

  • Members
  • 13,370 posts
  • Joined: 14-October 11

Posted 03 March 2013 - 02:24 PM

Oral arguments before CA2 were held on Feb 1. CA2 doesn't publish an MP3 of the arguments to their website the way CA7 does. Inerested parties have to send away for tapes.

By chance did anyone here send away for the orals in Kwong?




.

Edited by C0untZer0, 03 March 2013 - 02:25 PM.

“Most gun control arguments miss the point. If all control boils fundamentally to force, how can one resist aggression without equal force? How can a truly “free” state exist if the individual citizen is enslaved to the forceful will of individual or organized aggressors?
 
 It cannot.” 

 

― Tiffany Madison― 


#19 spyder1911

  • Members
  • 2 posts
  • Joined: 03-February 13

Posted 04 March 2013 - 11:38 AM

What would happen if the court sided with the plaintiff and then NY simply raised all fees to $340?

I'm assuming a second lawsuit but that could ruin many gun owners when they get hit with a 34x increase in permit costs.

#20 C0untZer0

    Contributing Member in Arrears

  • Members
  • 13,370 posts
  • Joined: 14-October 11

Posted 04 March 2013 - 12:10 PM

Gura files for cert and hopefully SCOTUS overturns on grounds either of EP or it being a prior restraint, better yet - both.

Like Gray said

Some things are meant for SCOTUS.


“Most gun control arguments miss the point. If all control boils fundamentally to force, how can one resist aggression without equal force? How can a truly “free” state exist if the individual citizen is enslaved to the forceful will of individual or organized aggressors?
 
 It cannot.” 

 

― Tiffany Madison― 


#21 kevinmcc

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,550 posts
  • Joined: 16-December 12

Posted 09 March 2013 - 01:27 AM

What would happen if the court sided with the plaintiff and then NY simply raised all fees to $340?

I'm assuming a second lawsuit but that could ruin many gun owners when they get hit with a 34x increase in permit costs.


From this case, "the City can charge a nominal fee to defray
costs", which is how other courts have ruled.

Only fees can only be as much as to cover the cost of the program.
Life Member, Gun Owners of America
Life Member, NRA
Life Member, Oath Keepers
Life Member, Second Amendment Foundation

#22 C0untZer0

    Contributing Member in Arrears

  • Members
  • 13,370 posts
  • Joined: 14-October 11

Posted 09 March 2013 - 08:25 AM

New York's fees don't cover just the cost of the program - they fund Police Pensions, but even if they did cover the cost of the program - it's easy to create a bloated, inefficient and very expensive program.

I'm hoping that the argument that prevails is to compare the cost of any particular program to other programs and reduce the expensive ones to the average or something like that.
“Most gun control arguments miss the point. If all control boils fundamentally to force, how can one resist aggression without equal force? How can a truly “free” state exist if the individual citizen is enslaved to the forceful will of individual or organized aggressors?
 
 It cannot.” 

 

― Tiffany Madison― 


#23 THE KING

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,628 posts
  • Joined: 19-March 09

Posted 10 March 2013 - 09:47 AM

I would rather see the costs go away totally. Why should I have to pay a fee to exercise a constitutional right ??

If you read the Heller written opinion. The SCOTUS asked Mr. Heller if he was OK with the permit process. Personally, I wish he would have said no and made the argument back then to do away with the permitting process totally. The Supreme Court was ready to deal with the issue at that time.

NRA Patriot Life Member - Endowment
ISRA Member
NRA Certified Basic Pistol Instructor
NRA Certified Range Safety Officer
ISP Certified Illinois Conceal Carry Instructor
Retired Professional Firefighter / Paramedic


#24 TyGuy

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,828 posts
  • Joined: 10-November 09

Posted 10 March 2013 - 09:49 AM

Or make the fee shared by everyone, like how we all pay the costs of elections.
ILSP Approved CCW Instructor
NRA Endowment Member
ISRA Member
GOA Member

Buy my stuff!

My favorite post ----- Walmart Thread ----- Ammo Alert Thread ---- Daily Deals Thread

#25 C0untZer0

    Contributing Member in Arrears

  • Members
  • 13,370 posts
  • Joined: 14-October 11

Posted 17 March 2013 - 09:36 AM

Sincere thanks to esqappellate at The Firing Line, the entire oral arguments for the day:






I'm not sure how well it works streaming it so I'll put the URL here in quotes:

"https://www.dropbox....ry 1, 2013.mp3"

Kwong argument is last and starts at 1:37

Edited by C0untZer0, 17 March 2013 - 09:48 AM.

“Most gun control arguments miss the point. If all control boils fundamentally to force, how can one resist aggression without equal force? How can a truly “free” state exist if the individual citizen is enslaved to the forceful will of individual or organized aggressors?
 
 It cannot.” 

 

― Tiffany Madison― 


#26 C0untZer0

    Contributing Member in Arrears

  • Members
  • 13,370 posts
  • Joined: 14-October 11

Posted 18 March 2013 - 08:03 AM

Someone put a shortened file out there - just the Kwong Orals:


https://www.dropbox.com/s/4xphyeik9pxsecw/Kwong%20v%20Bloomberg%20Orals%2C%202013.mp3

http://thefiringline...47&postcount=50

Edited by C0untZer0, 18 March 2013 - 08:06 AM.

“Most gun control arguments miss the point. If all control boils fundamentally to force, how can one resist aggression without equal force? How can a truly “free” state exist if the individual citizen is enslaved to the forceful will of individual or organized aggressors?
 
 It cannot.” 

 

― Tiffany Madison― 


#27 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,754 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 14 August 2013 - 12:46 PM

Well, this is fun. I'll save my analysis for later but here you go. The concurring opinion by Judge Walker is basically "Yeah I agree this is constitutional but for other reasons than in the Opinion." Jensen already filed for en banc.

Majority (unanimous AFAIK)
Attached File  Opinion.DE89.pdf   298.86KB   227 downloads

Judge Walker's Concurrence
Attached File  Judge.Walker.Concurring.Opinion.pdf   136.18KB   202 downloads

Jensen's Petition for Rehearing En Banc (This is good stuff but either way it's going to SCOTUS...one big, fat, juicy case for them too)
Attached File  Petition.for.Rehearing.En.Banc.DE95.pdf   183.23KB   264 downloads
NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#28 BrowningHP

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,612 posts
  • Joined: 05-February 13

Posted 14 August 2013 - 01:13 PM

NYC's counsel, paraphrased: "$340 is needed to defray the administrative costs of issuing a permit" ... right.. administrative costs like private jet rides to the hamptons? daily limo rides?

#29 C0untZer0

    Contributing Member in Arrears

  • Members
  • 13,370 posts
  • Joined: 14-October 11

Posted 14 August 2013 - 01:27 PM

Its a violation of Equal Protection.

It's sad what has happened to the judiciary.
“Most gun control arguments miss the point. If all control boils fundamentally to force, how can one resist aggression without equal force? How can a truly “free” state exist if the individual citizen is enslaved to the forceful will of individual or organized aggressors?
 
 It cannot.” 

 

― Tiffany Madison― 


#30 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,754 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 14 August 2013 - 01:38 PM

CA2 is loaded with activist judges who ignore precedent and actual statutory law (as evidenced by the opinion) and rule however they want based on their "feelings." This case will have SCOTUS salivating, begging for a cert petition. Fees to exercise rights? Yeah you really need to deal with that, since fees to exercise the right to vote are unconstitutional.
NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users