Text Us: #30930
Phone: (800) 616 WBEN
Business: (716) 843-0600
| More
WBEN NewsRadio 930>Audio & Video on Demand>>Attorney Jim Ostrowski- Challenging NY Gun Permit Law

Attorney Jim Ostrowski- Challenging NY Gun Permit Law

Feb 23, 2014|

Related Audio:


Automatically Generated Transcript (may not be 100% accurate)

Wanna take somebody called this next segment on the New York states a fact and specifically -- look at some of the legal issues. There are starting to poke out around that. We have attorney Jim Ostrosky with us on the line good morning Jim thanks for joining us. It worried you are getting ready to -- -- against the save act tell me more I guess most relevant is tell me why. The events of rulings that give you better better legal grounding in some putting to stand on perhaps. Yet David it's not so -- that they effected -- really the the older New York pistol permit. Regulatory. And statutory scheme. But the issues are quite similar in both cases this has to do with. How far the speaking go in restricting the rights to bear arms so there they're very similar issues -- the fact. That's going to be up on appeal. From Java script he's ruling. Which -- a mixed ruling but. Ruled in favor of the state of a couple of points in favor of the right to bear arms them. On one point but done it's it's more challenge to the pistol permit law. All right tell me what exists now. That you specifically challenging in that regard. Well you know when the when the -- decisions you know first came out I was approached -- some people. Two bit wanted to challenge the permit law. And you know I looked at the law -- -- looked at Heller and if that is I think we've got a good. Challenge here book you know sometimes things get -- sidetracked in another lawsuit was filed down in New York City. Which we can talk about in the second sub I've been looking at this for a number of years -- my basic contention is. If the right to terms -- fundamental right. Then the state cannot license that -- it would be like -- To prior state restraint. And in in First Amendment parlance. So that that's going to be the first challenge and we I think it's very important to. You know find out what the what the other movements of the right to berms are. Some lawyers who have been somewhat cautious and not pressing limits I think it is very important approach the limits of the people know. Exactly what their rights are. And that this decision was ultimately too important to be left the court so if if the courts are not going to enforce their rights. We have to. Look too political. And all the solutions to to protect that that fundamental right. Back up for a moment you use -- that this particular case was involved discussion. Of -- describe that one of them move forward. -- well -- you know there was a debate for real long time. All along and legal scholars and in the public and the pundits as to whether the Second Amendment protected an individual right to bear arms the language of the amendment. Is somewhat confusing it was one of the compromises. Between. -- a number of different. You know pre existing statements of the right to bear arms and it's not the best written amendment ever. But I think the American people always understood to mean it's right to is basically what some confusing language about the militias there. But Heller for the first time that. You know the people are right on the law professors are mostly wrong -- those protects an individual right to bear arms in the news subsequent case. McDonald out of Chicago. That applied to the right to the estate's through the fourteenth amendment so. Most of the sort of basic background. People have. Pointed out that the cases we've almost leaves more questions. Unanswered than answered. There's been a lot of litigation. Recently the not ninth circuit disagreed with the second circuit. That. Proper spot cause they're good cause requirement to carry. Leo firearm. In public. Is constitutional second circuit that it's the state can't restricted. The ninth circuit. It cannot now we discoveries. That point in our brief even know. In -- federal court. Well whatever judges cited the case. It would be bound by it they helped helped you the second circuit decision. What I've read it and they're because it I just I know this is going this -- going to the Supreme Court whether our case goes to not -- I have no control over that but. -- preserving the issue for review but we're actually reasoning. Aside from the general. You know almost all of the optical position. That the Second Amendment should be treated like the first to third and -- and so on. Is that -- you can have a license to you if you can't. The state cannot. Make you -- licensed exercise of fundamental right there's a number of specific. Issues that we have in the statute. Pick yourself an album the you know for example the statute of quarters. That you proved that good moral character our contention is. There's nowhere nobody really knows what that means that it gives the government way too much discretion because it's an ambiguous and vague term. To deny permits. We we believe the whole process of getting a permanent usually burdensome. Expensive. And time consuming. Can take you know some of the -- -- in Europe hold its more like two years. So there's a number is that it's a broad based challenge. To the New York pistol permit law on. Very. You know. General principles that the very good old principles. That have already mentioned but also. Attacking a number of specific elements of the statute. Another example is. You have to prove to have been convicted of serious offense. It's not really clear. And I think that. There's there's a lot more offensive than there that have nothing to do with public safety in the wintry perform. So we're challenging that it is over abroad. Are you know are are you arguing that the entire permit process. Isn't contradiction with the Second Amendment and the part that says shall not be infringed. Absolutely absolutely. But you know I'm a realist and I'm a pragmatist as well. Are in and hoping that if the courts do not accept that view. For personal gain to. You gain valuable information. What can the port Austin we found out the courts aren't going to enforce the ban on corporate welfare okay -- -- -- -- go to local political. Solution but I am hoping that even if the court doesn't agree with that. That they will strike down a lot of these specific. Elements in the statute that that make it very difficult for for for people who obtain a firearms -- -- And what's your timeframe when do you actually go ahead and file this. When do we seats are percolating through the courts. Done -- really open negated filed in early march home and eat it it's kind of one of these deals where it's like it's not a class action suit technically but. It involves a lot of different people so there's been some discussions with with. Party's interest in the case and that states who will put more time that I thought but. Pretty much I expect to wrap it up and get this thing filed. In March. 8030930s. Are numbered -- Ostrosky is series an attorney who is challenging New York State's pistol permit process says that. When you look at it especially in light of recent cases like -- which we mentioned earlier in the program that it turns out it's in conflict with the Second Amendment he's obviously putting this forth on principle. If you'd like to join the conversation and try to find out a little bit more about this let's open up the phone lines now. 8030930s. Number Jim well let's start to topple bit about Hamburg and you've got a case there you need to discuss -- specifically some of that. The repeal say a fact lost signs that their. Popping up on people's lawns. They have been challenged in Hamburg will get to that in a little bit but let's bring in some phone calls John and Cheektowaga you're on with Jim hello. I know. It's your turn yeah I have a question I -- a bit by bit permit for about eighteen years now and even. Secure your Brooklyn New York City your type -- would discuss the permit -- church is thought and that. And secure I was curious I'm all what he thought about registering all these -- -- it and felt like dead. How is this going to be part of the lawsuit or is it. I don't put any words -- gym member I'm betting that the first brick could take on the whole wall you're thinking right. Well that they -- would affect all ultimately these the more restrictive gun laws in the in New York City. If we were to prevail. We chose the proper cause. Requirement which is statewide have been in in. New York City that even more restrictive as far as registration can. On. We're not -- get into that in this particular. Lawsuit but severe questions about the constitutionality. Of those. Of those requirements and the day of -- if I may. One of the differences I think as I look at what they expect a complaint. And it is very good for the attorneys file that are our top flight. With national reputations. One that they don't wanna accomplish. With this complaint. It is too. Try to educate the public is that the real purpose of the second about -- it is it's not so much to. You know have a government old piece of verbal component that three day out. On in I think that by a sort of allowing. The politicians who. Operate on that promise we put ourselves with a dissident review review kind of get lost in the weeds and you know the study's about token people really use begun. Is it's who could be stole loses the -- -- get edit. But all that's really beside the point because the purpose and that purpose of the Second Amendment to make sure that the people. Could defend themselves against the tyrannical. Government and that this really. Pretty clear if you look at -- 46. Our medicine even talks about oh well don't worry the federal government won't get out of control but -- because if it -- the of the of the the American people armed. With -- firearms can actually defeat them in the back out. So is this stuff isn't even. Historically controversial it's just that it's not taught in the schools. And one of the one of the all what the purpose of this lawsuit is to really bring these issues out there -- to be the actual meaning. Purpose history of the of the Second Amendment. It's to protect the people's right of ultimate sovereignty. And to protect the people. That the people from tyrannical. Government now the people will it become an argument you did as. While the United States is in the tyrannical government we've never engaged in mass murder of our of our people was. Obviously younger examples of -- Nazi Germany is China and Russia. The quicker the better argument because we've we've always have the right to bear arms here felt these -- the type of issues that though we're gonna use in this lawsuit. With not only a lawsuit so be grounded in law and I've got to filed that's already about eight inches thick. Filled with -- what would that also love an opportunity to educate the public that the public interest the case. And one of the with the phone computers to educate the public as to the true meaning and in history and purpose of these -- All right let's bring in other callers -- on cell phone hi you're on the air. -- at the but I'm -- -- yet you're on the -- go ahead hi. I got out -- -- entered it in the institutional background as well. When the only other sit down to talk about yeah. Limitations on our current court the definition of a current and that we ED I. At -- black powder muffed it the black outer bill. Which it shouldn't -- As Governor Cuomo says how many bullets. How many automatic -- you need to take down the air. But the fact is that under constitutional construction of the term. Firearm is the fine but -- -- Smart dealing with weapons of mass destruction. Like we have today are hiring outlook here and -- -- much -- -- Well. You know. It what they put -- an extreme example just to make the point. When Hitler was rounding up Jews in the -- ago. If you take -- -- it would have been very useful for them. Begun I think that the child was missing the point the Second Amendment has nothing to do or virtually nothing to do a hundred. The Second Amendment. The purpose of the Second Amendment is to make sure that our government does not engage in the purity does not. Create a police state where you have a road block would you leave the house we have to identify yourself. To go to would have been to another county where. You won't be rounded up to a concentration camp and by the way the United States has rounded up people concentration camps that -- be the the listeners are probably aware during World War II. So that again and they collar the collar illustrates the point that is widespread. Lack of knowledge is that true purpose should be of the Second Amendment could is to allow the citizenry. To protect themselves from the government to reassert their sovereignty over the government when over the government gets out of control. All right Mike in -- we gotta squeeze it in quickly be here on now glad. Good morning good morning that this is effectively achieve these ridiculous people are tired of having -- -- in the ninth on the lip color. -- I'm probably didn't think about our government having automatic weapon you -- OK that's his job and wish you very good luck people need to wake up -- the world looks to America. The world looks to America for the rights of man and the freedom and you can't okay. And up with a minute legislation could look in federal court we'll give it a little scary over the Supreme Court because people -- -- the -- and the -- by -- Do you think -- eventually reach the supreme -- him. I think they're pretty sure that this particular case will reach the Supreme Court. But. Absolutely the issues raised in this case will -- the Supreme Court. At some point in just two two elaborate a little bit on the on the -- points. When you when you look at the very alarming pattern of demilitarization. Of the police now. Our homes we barely had that many police. The police department and in and colonial times so. This situation you know that that the circumstances change. The principles not the people have a right to use current technology. To make sure that the government does not have a monopoly. On force the bill and in electoral -- -- -- the issue of juries is well. These the founders did not want the government to have a complete monopoly of power in the two things that to clear instances where they gave. These oh they recognize the how would remain in the hands of the people. Even after the democratic government is formed in one example it is. The the right to trial by jury that's an example of the power. Political power being helped with the people and the other clear example is the right -- -- through some actual. Political. And course at home with me with the public founders. Totally understood the history of critical government they were they've studied Rome evolved over prior communities of history. And that this was all deliberate on their part and again this is one of the great purposes of the lawsuit -- re educate the public has to. That the that's very important history -- Second Amendment. We are already way too late before our break we've gone over on the segment but I I did want to touch briefly also on another issue you're involved and there's some sort of challenge or at least controversy emerging in Hamburg people of all these repeal the same effect signs on the front lawns. They are you -- being harassed. Yeah now this isn't my particular case but I I think it is done FaceBook and I believe the the provision is genuinely the actual total was this morning. All of those gentlemen posted some very large fees very large -- signs inside Cuomo and because they expect. And apparently got a summons from the town of Hamburg and that issue's going to be heard of this week and it it is also. Suggestion might be politically motivated. But I I can't I can't vouch for that. But I think that the point I would like to make is that you have an absolute right to have a political -- on your proper -- All in spite of -- local laws of the country and there's lots of local laws -- a lot of misunderstanding about this now the only gray areas. You get out of the public right of way. Which sometimes hard to figure out what that is but it's. Often several feet. Off of the -- -- you you you can't even picture property. There is -- can obstruct the public right away. So there is a little bit of a gray area there but generally speaking on your own clear property off the public right away you can put any political lineup you want to -- -- ruled on by the front court. All right that will we are completely. Totally out of time Jim thanks for joining us. They thought they were really appreciate. Glad you could do it that's Jim Ostrosky local attorney. Who's beginning to do the ground work and eventually file a lawsuit against the -- pistol permits are issued in New York State.


Get it Now

WBEN iPhone App



Photo Galleries

RSS Center