Some more on the Sullivan Law being upheld in court over at No Lawyers – Only Guns and Money, “Damn! Judge Rules For State In Kachalsky v. Cacace.”
Here is a link to the decision. I have been told it will be appealed.
One thought on “Appeal coming”
Comments are closed.
Cathy Seibel (born 1960), [@51,] is a United States federal judge for the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. She joined the court in 2008 after being nominated by President George W. Bush. (Bush strikes again, of course Sen. UpChuck Schumer and Hillary had to approve and UpChuck would never approve any one who was not anti-gun and 2nd amendment.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathy_Seibel
picture: http://www.whiteplainsbar.org/pages/events/2008/october_meeting.html
Another liberal, anti-gun NY Judge? NO, who would have thought?
From the decision, (pg 43):
“Finally, Plaintiffs argue that Heller’s discussion of the lawful use of arms for hunting demonstrates that the Court’s holding is not limited to possession in the home. (Pls.’ Mem. at 12.) This argument too is unavailing, as hunting does not involve handguns and therefore falls outside the ambit of the challenged statute. In any event, the NYPL provides for licenses to possess firearms for hunting purposes. See, e.g., N.Y. Penal Law § 265.20(4).”
(NOTE: under PL 265 Definition 3: “3. “Firearm” means (a) any pistol or revolver …” so firearm is not a general term for all guns or includes long guns, only handguns.)
She states that “licenses to possess firearms for hunting purposes” is covered under 265.20(4) but that states: ” 4. Possession of a rifle, shotgun or longbow for use while hunting, trapping or fishing, by a person, not a citizen of the United States, carrying a valid license issued pursuant to section 11-0713 of the environmental conservation law.” and so has nothing to do with handguns but with possession of long gun and bows by a non-citizen.
Possession of a handgun for hunting or any other reason is exempt under section: “3. Possession of a pistol or revolver by a person to whom a license therefor has been issued as provided under section 400.00 or 400.01 …” This is because under PL 400-2(f), the section most pistol licenses are issued, you are allowed to have a handgun: “have and carry concealed, without regard to employment or place of possession,” and that would include hunting.
Am I wrong?? If an idiot like me can understand this, how can a Judge screw up such a simple thing? Another example of a Judge and their law clerk who don’t know anything about guns and don’t have a handgun license because if you get a license this is one of the things that you would or should learn or know about.