New Yorkers' Gun Rights May Rest on Hot Dog Vendor's Case (NYC)

[davepc]

If New York's strict antigun laws are overturned in the near future, it may be the work of a hot dog vendor.

The vendor, Daniel Vargas, is due next month in court to fight misdemeanor charges that he kept an unlicensed revolver loaded on a basement shelf in his apartment. The case, which has generated 23 hearings and been heard by no fewer than 10 different judges as it winds through Brooklyn's lowest criminal court, would be of little general interest, except for the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled that the Second Amendment protects a right to keep a handgun at home for self-defense.

Now, suddenly, Mr. Vargas's case, as well as a handful of other cases, are testing the authority of district attorneys to prosecute people for gun possession, a strategy that Mayor Bloomberg has emphasized in his criminal justice policies.

In about half a dozen New York City cases reviewed by The New York Sun, defense lawyers have filed briefs arguing that the Supreme Court's decision requires the dismissal of gun possession charges against their clients.

The briefs question the constitutionality of the city's treatment of all unlicensed guns as illegal guns — mere possession of which can be punished by up to 15 years in prison.

At least two of the cases involve gun arrests during traffic stops. The motions ask New York courts to expand the federal Supreme Court decision to find that the "right to bear arms is not limited to the physical confines of the home," as a Brooklyn lawyer, Andrew Miller, wrote in one such case.

...

http://www.nysun.com/new-york/gun-rights-of-new-yorkers-may-rest-on-case-of-hot/83043/

[spin]

1. His biggest problem is that he's not a rich and powerful...

individual such as Don Imus or Donald Trump who have licenses to carry concealed in new York: A mere hot dog vendor just doesn't deserve to be allowed to have a weapon in his home. If New York City allows this, then all sorts of rabble will want to exercise their right to protect themselves with firearms. Only the rich and privileged deserve that right!


The Post reported in March that among those with permits to carry concealed weapons in the city are cosmetics heir Ronald Lauder, Donald Trump and Seagrams scion Edgar Bronfman Sr.

Also allowed to pack heat are actors Robert De Niro and Harvey Keitel; radio personalities Howard Stern and Don Imus; and state Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno, who doesn't live in the city, but has an office here.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/11012006/news/regionalnews/mike_to_gun_permit_holders__pack_it_in_regionalnews_kenneth_lovett.htm


edited for typo

[tburnsten]

2. Awesome

"Also allowed to pack heat are actors Robert De Niro and Harvey Keitel;"

While I definitely don't support the way that only the rich, famous, and influential are able to acquire a permit to carry in that area, I am thrilled that two actors I have been a fan of for much of my life DO carry. It might be a bad system, but at least we know that some deserving people do carry. Does anyone know what those two, Joseph Bruno, and donald trump's position on carry is? are they in favor of shall issue? If so, then I definitely think they are desrving of theifr licenses, and I hope they start advocating for broad carry rights.

[spin]

3. To be fair it could be argued that...

Rich and famous people like Don Imus or Donald Trump may have many more enemies than the average Joe on the street. Therefore, they may have more reason to carry concealed than most people.

However, it only takes one criminal or insane person to kill you. Everybody, rich or poor of either gender or any race deserves the right to live. Even a poor person might be making a real contribution to society, perhaps even a larger contribution than say Don Imus or some financial tycoon or actor. A criminal who uses a weapon to kill a person has no respect for that person or for the rules of a civilized society. To me any person who takes someones life in a fit of rage or drunkenness is suffering from either a form of insanity or is totally irresponsible. The individual he targets has a right to defend himself even if he has to use lethal force.

An honest person has the right to possess a firearm to defend himself and his family against attack. The decision to do so is very serious and involves great responsibility. Not everyone should own a firearm. One has to look inside his own soul and make an honest determination of his abilities and his weaknesses. If he realizes that he suffers from anger management problems, extreme jealousy or tends to abuse alcohol then he should avoid buying a weapon. If he knows that there is no way he could take another persons life even if necessary then again he should avoid owning a gun. If he is totally unfamiliar with firearms and safe handling then he should be willing to take the time and the effort to learn how to master the weapons he buys.

Society has a responsibility to regulate the legal purchase of firearms to insure that people with a criminal background or severe mental problems are not allowed to purchase weapons from licensed dealers. Government also has the responsibility to find criminals with weapons and punish them so severely that they are removed from society for a extended period of time. It does little good to restrict firearm ownership for honest people but allow criminals to arm themselves and run rampant.

Society also has further responsibilities which involve find the root causes of violence and find solutions. Poor education, lack of opportunity, racism, prejudice and criminal drug abuse and the drug gangs that deal the drugs are some of the problems we need to address.

We live in a violent society and we are failing to solve our problems. To take away the tools that enable an honest person to defend himself when we fail at providing a safe environment only compounds the problem and is irresponsible on the part of government.