People v. Brain Foster

7 Citing cases

  1. Tessler v. City of New York

    38 Misc. 3d 215 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2012)

    Unlike the local laws addressed in Heller and McDonald, however, the New York State and City statutes and regulations governing petitioner's possession of a handgun are only licensing requirements, not an outright or effective ban on handguns or even a restriction severe enough to infringe on Second Amendment rights. N.Y. Penal Law § 400.00; N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 10–131(a)(1); 38 RCNY §§ 5–22 and 5–30; McDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 S.Ct. at 3026, 177 L.Ed.2d 894;People v. Hughes, 83 A.D.3d 960, 961, 921 N.Y.S.2d 300 (2d Dept.2011); People v. Perkins, 62 A.D.3d 1160, 1161, 880 N.Y.S.2d 209 (3d Dept.2009); People v. Foster, 30 Misc.3d 596, 599–600, 915 N.Y.S.2d 449 (Crim. Ct. Kings Co.2010). These requirements bar only possession of unlicensed handguns.

  2. Zedek v. Kelly

    2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 30209 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2012)

    Unlike the local laws addressed in Heller and McDonald, however, the New York State and City statutes and regulations governing petitioner's possession of a handgun are only licensing requirements, not an outright or effective ban on handguns or even a restriction severe enough to infringe on Second Amendment rights. N.Y. Penal Law § 400.00; N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 10-131 (a) (1) ; 38 R.C.N.Y. §§ 5-22, 5-30; McDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 S. Ct. at 3026; People v. Hughes, 83 A.D.3d 960, 961 (2d Dep't 2011); People v. Perkins, 62 A.D.3d 1160, 1161 (3d Dep't 2009); People v. Foster, 30 Misc. 3d 596, 599-600 (Crim. Ct. Kings Co. 2010) .

  3. Zedek v. Kelly

    37 Misc. 3d 1208 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2012)   Cited 3 times

    Unlike the local laws addressed in Heller and McDonald, however, the New York State and City statutes and regulations governing petitioner's possession of a handgun are only licensing requirements, not an outright or effective ban on handguns or even a restriction severe enough to infringe on Second Amendment rights. NY Penal Law § 400.00; N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 10–131(a)(1); 38 R.C.NY §§ 5–22, 5–30; McDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 S.Ct. at 3026;People v. Hughes, 83 AD3d 960, 961 (2d Dep't 2011); People v. Perkins, 62 AD3d 1160, 1161 (3d Dep't 2009); People v. Foster, 30 Misc.3d 596, 599–600 (Crim. Ct. Kings Co.2010). These requirements bar only possession of unlicensed handguns.

  4. People v. Nivar

    30 Misc. 3d 952 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2011)

    ce to carry firearms in or affecting interstate commerce); United States v. Marzzarella, 614 F.3d 85 (3rd Cir.2010), pet. for cert. filed, Nov. 23, 2010 (rejecting Second Amendment challenge to 18 USC § 922(k), which makes it a felony to possess a firearm with an obliterated serial number; see also id. at 90-91, n. 5 [collecting cases] ); United States v. White, 593 F.3d 1199 (11th Cir.2010) (holding that Heller does not cast doubt on constitutionality of 18 USC § 922[g][9] ). Because of the explosion of Second Amendment litigation postHeller, and because cases analyzing Second Amendment challenges in various contexts are being decided with such frequency, see, e.g., United States v. Oppedisano, 2010 WL 4961663 48 (E.D.N.Y., 2010) (rejecting defendant's motion to introduce otherwise irrelevant evidence to argue that 18 USC § 922(g)(1), prohibiting possession of ammunition as a convicted felon, is unconstitutional as applied to him in light of Heller ); People v. Foster, ---A.D.3d ---- 915 N.Y.S.2d 449 (Crim. Ct., Kings County, 2010), this Court does not attempt to set forth an exhaustive list of all federal and state cases raising challenges to such categorical bans.

  5. People v. Nivar

    30 Misc. 3d 952 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2011)

    o carry firearms in or affecting interstate commerce]; United States v Marzzarella, 614 F3d 85 [3d Cir 2010], cert denied 562 US ___, 131 S Ct 958 [2011] [rejecting Second Amendment challenge to 18 USC § 922 (k), which makes it a felony to possess a firearm with an obliterated serial number]; see also id. at 90-91 n 5 [collecting cases]; United States v White, 593 F3d 1199 [11th Cir 2010] [holding that Heller does not cast doubt on constitutionality of 18 USC § 922 (g) (9)].) Because of the explosion of Second Amendment litigation post- Heller, and because cases analyzing Second Amendment challenges in various contexts are being decided with such frequency ( see e.g. United States v Oppedisano, 2010 WL 4961663 48, 2010 US Dist LEXIS 127094 [ED NY, Nov. 30, 2010] [rejecting defendant's motion to introduce otherwise irrelevant evidence to argue that 18 USC § 922 (g) (1), prohibiting possession of ammunition as a convicted felon, is unconstitutional as applied to him in light of Heller]; People v Foster, 30 Misc 3d 596 [Crim Ct, Kings County 2010]), this court does not attempt to set forth an exhaustive list of all federal and state cases raising challenges to such categorical bans. Penal Law §§ 265.01, 400.00

  6. People v. Nivar

    2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 21015 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2011)

    anor crime of domestic violence to carry firearms in or affecting interstate commerce); United States v Marzzarella, 614 F3d 85 (3rd Cir 2010), pet. for cert. filed, Nov 23, 2010 (rejecting Second Amendment challenge to 18 USC § 922(k), which makes it a felony to possess a firearm with an obliterated serial number; see also id. at 90-91, n. 5 [collecting cases]); United States v White, 593 F3d 1199 (11th Cir 2010) (holding that Heller does not cast doubt on constitutionality of 18 USC § 922[g][9]). Because of the explosion of Second Amendment litigation postHeller, and because cases analyzing Second Amendment challenges in various contexts are being decided with such frequency, see, e.g., United States v Oppedisano, 2010 WL 4961663 48 (ED NY, decided Nov 30, 2010) (rejecting defendant's motion to introduce otherwise irrelevant evidence to argue that 18 USC § 922(g)(1), prohibiting possession of ammunition as a convicted felon, is unconstitutional as applied to him in light of Heller); People v Foster, — NYS 2d —, 2010 WL 5187702, 2010 NY Slip Op. 20525 (Crim Ct, Kings County, decided Dec. 15, 2010), this Court does not attempt to set forth an exhaustive list of all federal and state cases raising challenges to such categorical bans. Penal Law §§ 265.01 and 400.00

  7. In re Lederman v. N.Y.C. P.D.

    2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 30765 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2011)

    Neither Heller norMcDonald stand for the principal that states cannot regulate firearms. Other plaintiffs in cases brought in New York State sinceHeller have raised very arguments to those raised by Lederman without success (see, People v. Perkins. 62 A.D.3d 1160 [3rd Dept., 2009]; People v. Nivar. ___ Misc3d ___, 915 N.Y.S.2d 801 [Sup Ct. Bx 2011];People v. Foster. 30 Misc.3d 596 [N.Y.City Crim.Ct., 2010];Matter of Bastian. NYLJ