Heller v District of Columbia

TREMENDOUS WIN FOR ALL LAW-ABIDING GUN OWNERS, AND FUTURE GUN-OWNERS BY THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.

"A WELL REGULATED MILITIA, BEING NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE, THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"

NYS LOSES BIG: YEARS OF DECISIONS HOLDING GUN OWNERSHIP AS A PRIVILEGE, NOT A RIGHT, IN NYS, WILL FAIL IN THE FACE OF HELLER.

The law firm has received numerous calls regarding the impact of the Heller decision (District of Columbia v Heller) upon New York City residents vis-a-vis gun licensing. Although I have read the decision, and I do believe it is a MONUMENTAL move forward for gun owners, and law-abiding citizens who wish to become gun owners, it is too soon to know precisely how it will impact New York's handgun licensing statutory and regulatory schemes.

However, make no mistake about it, this decision was a very long time coming. And, for all New Yorkers, it will ultimately have a positive effect. This is because every challenge to a licensing officer's determination that is against the handgun licensee or applicant is looked at by the Court using the notion that in NYS the ownership of a gun is a "privilege and not a right."

The United States Supreme Court has now mandated that the people of all of America (including those of us who reside in the five boroughs and in the rest of our state) have a RIGHT to keep and bear arms, under our United States Constitution.

As most of you know, I am the only attorney in New York State with a long record of defending law-abiding citizens in their quests to procure licensure, or those who are already licensed who have been deemed to have an "incident." So, I guess you can say that I am the resident expert in the field. At least with respect to New York.

There is no other attorney who has dedicated his practice exclusively to these issues.

As such, I suppose I am your "go to" guy, as far as answering these questions. However, as an attorney, and one who has many years of practice under his belt, I will not delude you in any way. The Heller case is not going to instantly change a thing. Whatever changes occur, and I believe there will be many over time, will indeed take time. And, will take litigation.

Let's not forget, the lawsuit underlying the Heller case challenged a Washington, D.C., ban on gun ownership. And, although the D.C. law allowed long arms in the home, they could only be kept in the home if they were trigger locked, or inoperable. (Clearly rendering them not a very good instrument for self protection in the home).

In addition, Justice Antonin Scalia's 64 page opinion, whilst clearly announcing that the Second Amendment does not ONLY pertain to the militia, but bestows an individual right, as well, also clearly holds that the prohibition against felons and the mentally ill obtaining handguns is not impacted by this decision. Heller, unfortunately, was unable to really explore the question of licensing, as Mr. Heller, and his counsel, decided to take that issue off the table very early in the litigation.

In New York City, as much as some of you might believe we have Draconian laws, rules, and regulations, with regard to handgun licensing, the fact is we still do not reside in a place where all guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens are banned.

We don't live in D.C., we don't live in Chicago, and we don't live in San Francisco. In all three of those jurisdictions, handguns are completely banned.

As I puzzle through what can be done now that we have finally been told that we have a RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS under the US Constitution, I shall keep you posted on my thoughts, as well as any cases which are decided based upon Heller.

John S. Chambers
Attorney-at-Law