LOSS at CA2: Law suit against NYC fee

This leaves a pretty dangerous precedent. Now a locality can make an inefficient, burdensome permit system and charge thousands of dollars per year, and its just fine by CA2. What a joke that court is. I hope they get cert but I'm not holding me breath.
 
100% goes to the NY pension fund

Sounds like a forced contribution but a contribution none the less.

At the very least, could they deduct it from their IRS/state taxes?
 
Some time has gone by and I haven't heard news of a writ of certiorari.

Jensen has until December 20th -23rd (somewhere in there) to file an appeal right?

Is there any indication that David Jensen will appeal?
 
To the best of my knowledge, the case will be appealed.

I haven't checked but the timeline you suggested seems to be about right.
 
I imagine a SCOTUS case would have to argue against the fee rather than anything related to a second amendment violation.
 
This case is about more than nominal fees, for permission, on the core right to keep arms in the home for "defense of hearth and home."

Yes, it is a direct and substantial burden on the exercise of the 2A. That is how it will be argued. The system in NYC was designed at the outset to hinder, as much as was possible, the citizens right to defend his home. Whether or not that point will be argued is probably foreclosed, as it was not really briefed either at District or at Appeals.
 
I came across this blog on Kwong v Bloomberg which I thought was interesting:

Unpacking Kwong v. Bloomberg: How Constitutional Review May Be More Dangerous Than Guns Themselves

http://ramblingsonappeal.blogspot.com/2013/07/unpacking-kwong-v-bloomberg-how.html

Something that I totally missed before, which I think was initially found only in Judge Walker's opinion, that the fee helps keep the public safe.

But then repeated by Susan Paulson council for NYC:

Susan Paulson, lead counsel for New York City, remarked in a public statement that she was pleased with the Second Circuit’s decision because it “properly recognized that the City’s licensing process is designed to promote public safety and prevent gun violence.”
Click to expand...

I don't remember this being talked about in orals at all, and I only see this briefly mention in item 13 in the Statement of Undisputed Facts submitted by Attorney General of the State of New York, and the plaintiff's response:

http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.nysd.377535/gov.uscourts.nysd.377535.33.0.pdf

In 1947, the law was amended to permit New York City to set its own fees, with the intention that licensing program would be “self-sustaining”. The legislative history demonstrates that the Legislature had received letters, including from the Mayor of the City of New York, William O’Dwyer, indicating that the then-current maximum fee of $1.50 was “inadequate to compensate for the administrative expense entailed in the issuance of such licenses”. The Mayor noted that before a license is issued, “the Police Department conducts an intensive investigation” to ensure that issuance of a license would not jeopardize the public safety and welfare. See Connell Decl., Ex. F, 1947 N.Y. Laws Ch. 147.

RESPONSE: Denied. New York City had the statutory power to set its own fees since 1938. Not disputed that the “Bill Jacket” contains a letter from the Mayor of New York City with the referenced statements, but disputed that this letter represents statements by the “Legislature” or even by an individual
Click to expand...

My point being that the notion of the fee for the purpose of public safety slipped by me personally, and seemed to fly under the radar in general.
 
I just realized the deadline date for this passed.

I think it would be great for SCOTUS to hear this case now in light of Moore and Peruta.

Does anyone know if Jensen applied for writ of certiorari ?
 
As you can see below, David Jensen has until Feb. 17th to file. Since that is Presidents Day, and a Federal Holiday, that means Jensen has until the end of the next day, Feb. 18th.

  • Dec 2 2013 Application (13A567) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from December 19, 2013 to February 2, 2014, submitted to Justice Ginsburg.
  • Dec 4 2013 Application (13A567) granted by Justice Ginsburg extending the time to file until February 3, 2014.
  • Jan 27 2014 Application (13A567) to further extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from February 3, 2014 to February 17, 2014, submitted to Justice Ginsburg.
  • Jan 29 2014 Application (13A567) granted by Justice Ginsburg extending the time to file until February 17, 2014.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/13a567.htm
 
Pretty crafty... getting extensions.

Like Lisa Madigan did in Moore to drag that case out.

Well now that CA9 has ruled in Peruta I think it is as good a time as any to appeal Kwong to the Supreme Court.
 
Will it take a while for a filing to show up on the docket?

I hope he filed.

I'm not sure how to track this down if David Jensen did file.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top