US District Court Decision in Nassau County
Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: US District Court Decision in Nassau County

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Elma NY
    Posts
    1,638

    US District Court Decision in Nassau County

    Court Requires Nassau County To Implement New Procedural Safeguards to Protect Gun Owners Constitutional Rights

    GARDEN CITY, NEW YORK, February 28, 2011: “In deciding in favor of Mr. Gabriel Razzano, the United States District Court, Eastern District of New York, has reaffirmed the long standing tradition of protecting individual civil rights, even in cases public safety is balanced the citizen’s Fourth Amendment right under the U.S. Constitution to be free from unreasonable seizure of property without due process.” said La Reddola.

  2.   
  3. #2
    Quote Originally Posted by golocx4 View Post
    Court Requires Nassau County To Implement New Procedural Safeguards to Protect Gun Owners Constitutional Rights

    GARDEN CITY, NEW YORK, February 28, 2011: “In deciding in favor of Mr. Gabriel Razzano, the United States District Court, Eastern District of New York, has reaffirmed the long standing tradition of protecting individual civil rights, even in cases public safety is balanced the citizen’s Fourth Amendment right under the U.S. Constitution to be free from unreasonable seizure of property without due process.” said La Reddola.
    Actually, the decision was based on 14th Amendment due process rights.

    The plaintiff' had moved for summary judgment on a 4th Amendment claim, but the court found that no such claim had been made in the pleadings, and not even the "liberal pleading" rule could be applied to find a 4th amendment claim.

    The court, however, allowed the plaintiff to file an amended complaint to raise the 4th amendment claim, but the court's decision was not based on the 4th amendment.

    This court's decision was similar to, and was based upon, a New York State case holding that DWI arrestees had a 14th amendment right to a post-deprivation hearing with regard to seizure of their cars.

    This case's importance to second amendment jurisprudence is based solely on the court's reasoning that:

    Moreover, the right to bear arms is enshrined in the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution, and although this right is by no means unlimited, ownership of guns by individuals legally entitled to those guns is a basic right. A prompt due process hearing is likely to limit the unfair curtailment of this right
    Those who purpose an unlimited right to own guns without legal qualification won't find much comfort in that reasoning.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast