This case presents one big issue that necessarily requires the resolution of a number of critical subsidiary issues.
- Should the State of New York, in all of its three branches of government, working in unison, be allowed to continue to blatantly violate the right to bear arms as recognized by this Court in the landmark decisions of District of Columbia v. Heller, ... (2008) and McDonald v. City of Chicago, ... (2010), through its arbitrary, complex and onerous pistol permit process which forces citizens to seek the permission of neighbors, police officers and licensing officials to exercise a fundamental right and which vests in licensing officials virtually unlimited discretion to deny, suspend or revoke handgun permits while ignoring due process, and which forces citizens to endure a lengthy, expensive and complex permit application process? Resolving this question requires the resolution of the following additional questions:
- Is intermediate scrutiny a proper standard for reviewing statutes that burden the Second Amendment?
- Can courts apply a balancing test such as intermediate scrutiny which effectively gives zero weight to the interests protected by the Second Amendment?
- Can courts properly evaluate Second Amendment claims without acknowledging the true purpose of the right to bear arms, to deter government tyranny in all its multifarious forms?
- Does New York's discretionary may-issue licensing law to purchase and possess handguns in the home for self-defense violate the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.
- Does New York's discretionary proper cause licensing law to purchase and possess handguns outside the home for self-defense violate the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.
- Are pistol permit licensing officers immune from suit merely because they also happen to be judges?
- Do citizens who have not applied for a pistol permit lack standing to challenge the need for a pistol permit?
If "the true purpose of the right to bear arms [is] to deter government tyranny," then Heller was wrong to say the purpose is self-defense, because the security of a free state is broader than opposing tyranny. Plaintiff's assertion seems like a step back.
Anyway, NY's response is due April 26.
Edited by Euler, 28 March 2021 - 01:24 AM.