Posted On: June 27, 2008

Guns & Ammo: The Right to Bear Arms

U.S. Supreme Court: District of Columbia v. Heller

Here’s what the Second Amendment says: “A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” The debate between advocates of gun control and defenders of the right to bear arms has focused on whether, as gun controllers read it, the Second Amendment guarantees that right to a “well regulated Militia” (whatever that is), or as gun owners see it, to individuals, since “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”

In another 5 - 4 decision, the Supreme Court took dead aim at the question and put the issue to rest. Kind of. It said the DC law which prohibited the registration of hand guns (to deter their purchase), required individuals to keep lawfully owned guns unloaded and disassembled or rendered inoperative by a trigger lock even in the home (making them worthless as tools of self defense), violated the Second Amendment. Such a restrictive law is really a prohibition of handguns, and the court shot it down.

The court went on to emphatically state that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, but still recognized that the right is not unlimited, and that reasonable restrictions and regulations (such as carry permits, prohibitions on gun ownership by felons or the mentally ill) have been (and can be) upheld under the Second Amendment.

The debate about our individual right to bear arms is over and the Supreme Court has given gun ownership advocates new ammunition to strike down unlawful restrictions on handguns. It remains to be seen if legislators have the creativity to enact laws (see U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit: City of New York v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp.) which keep guns out of the hands of criminals without infringing the guaranteed right of law-abiding citizens to own one.

Posted On: June 25, 2008

Naked City: The Right to Bare Butts

U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York: Burck d/b/a The Naked Cowboy v. Mars Inc.

If you’ve been to Times Square, you’ve seen him: The skivvies-clad singer with the cowboy hat known in these parts as “The Naked Cowboy.” Among the lights on Broadway are The Naked Cowboy’s tighty whities. Well, our resident cowboy thinks the makers of M&Ms are low-down scoundrels, having dressed up one of their blue M&Ms in the Naked One’s signature cowboy hat, boots, undies and guitar, and worse, displayed this animated advertisement prominently in Times Square, the heart of Naked Cowboy country. The cowboy would stand for none of it. He strode into District Court and called on the law to take action. The court was not unsympathetic. While it did not agree that the near buck-naked buckaroo’s privacy was violated, it did agree that he could proceed with his claim of false endorsement, since the public could well conclude that the unclothed cowpoke endorses M&M candy. Apparently, he does not. It still remains to be seen whether the Texas M&M gets run out of Times Square, or whether this town is big enough for the two of them.

That’s the beauty of our justice system: it’s available to the good, the bad and even the naked.

Posted On: June 24, 2008

Jihad: Terrorists, Terror Rights & Terror Wrongs

U.S. Supreme Court: Boumediene v. George W. Bush, President of the United States

Habeas Corpus is Latin for “you have the body.” Prisoners in America who think they are being held unjustly can seek to get out of jail by filing a Writ of Habeas Corpus. The Writ compels the authorities detaining the prisoner to show that he or she is being held legally. This is the life blood of our judicial process: just cause and due process. Absent such a showing, the person must be released. The Writ of Habeas Corpus has been a cornerstone of American justice, ensuring that no authorities are above the law or can freely abuse their significant power to imprison individuals. Historically, this right has been accorded all citizens and residents of the United States.

In Boumediene v. George W. Bush (decided June 12, 2008), the US Supreme Court took up the war on terrorism, specifically the issue of enemy combatants held at Guantanamo and whether they have the same right to Habeas Corpus as other Americans. In a 5 – 4 decision, the court ruled that enemy combatants, some of whom have been held captive for over six years, have such a right. The majority concluded that even enemy combatants cannot be held indefinitely in what may be a very long war on terrorism. In a blistering dissent, however, Chief Justice Roberts concluded that the majority was inserting itself into political questions traditionally left to elected officials to resolve, into the execution of American foreign policy, the responsibility for which has always been the province of the executive branch (the president) and was creating procedural rights for our enemies that could put our troops and national security in danger by granting detainees a possible right to demand evidence about the war effort.

These are unique times we live in: Either we are committing political suicide by granting powerful procedural rights to prisoners of war who were enemy combatants committed to the destruction of our way of life before their incarceration, or we are putting our lofty principals to action and trusting that the possible release of an Al Qaeda member or Jihadist is worth the price of extending civil procedural protections to all individuals detained by American authorities, even in time of war. It seems like the Supreme Court is just as divided as the rest of us on how to deal with terrorism in a free and democratic society.

Only the future will tell whether the collective wisdom of the majority decision has strengthened our country and the principals which have made it great, or whether its ruling is out of touch with the harsh realities of these times and has given those committed to our destruction another weapon to use against us. Stay tuned.


Posted On: June 23, 2008

New York City Streets: Guns Don't Kill People...

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit: City of New York v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp.

The City of New York cannot hold gun manufacturers liable for illegal guns that find their way into criminal hands. NYC filed suit under its Public Nuisance Law. It claimed gun suppliers failed to monitor gun shows and private sellers, did not do appropriate background checks or keep records and were generally irresponsible. The result: illegal guns in the hands of bad guys, a major public nuisance. While sympathetic to the problem, the court dismissed the case because an act of Congress had already insulated Smith & Wesson and other gun makers from liability for acts committed by criminals using guns they manufactured. In this duel, the City’s Public Nuisance Law was no match for the bigger guns of Congress. Apparently, their aim was true and gun manufacturers are protected from civil suits for what criminals do with their products.

Posted On: June 22, 2008

Job Security: Not in New York—You're Fired!

New York State Court of Appeals: Smalley v. Dreyfus Corporation


New York State’s highest court affirmed that New York is an at-will employment state: absent a specific contract (other than to be hired) or a union agreement, employees can be fired for any reason (but not the wrong reason—see New York Employment Discrimination). The court says employment is a type of contract, and if you get fired you cannot sue the boss for fraud or for inducing you to work for the employer before firing you. The court left open the possibility that with the right facts, there might be a claim of fraudulent inducement if it can be shown that you were damaged and that it was the employer’s plan to fire you all along. But being fired or losing your job from a merger or cutbacks is acceptable in New York, at least according to the Court of Appeals. The bottom line: be careful who you choose to work for.

Posted On: June 21, 2008

Voter Fraud: Picture This

U.S. Supreme Court: Crawford v. Marion County Election Board

The Supreme Court of the United States upheld Indiana’s Voter ID law which requires voters to present a current government-issued photo identification before they vote. The stated purpose of the law is to protect the integrity of the election process. The court thought this was a reasonable approach to the problem of potential voter fraud and presented a minimum burden to voters, given the use of photo IDs in other areas of our lives. About 20 other states have similar laws on the books. So far, New York does not. Are we next?

Posted On: June 20, 2008

Why read BETWEEN THE LINES?

Cases are decided by courts every day. Although cases decided in other states don’t immediately touch our lives here in New York, eventually, many do. They often show us where the law is heading (sometimes it's heading our way) and what is and what is not acceptable in other parts of the country. Federal courts also make decisions. Their rulings tend to affect us in less obvious but equally powerful ways by addressing such things as election laws, the internet, the war on terror and taxes. Not only that, the Supreme Court has THE final word on what is, or is not, constitutional, a virtually unrivaled power to affect the most important matters in our lives. And then there's the nuts and bolts rulings by New York State courts which touch us where we live, from how fast we can drive to what types of fats restaurants can cook with to how often we have to do jury duty.

Between the Lines: Your Rights, the Law and Your Life will give you a glimpse of some of the newsworthy cases that may touch your life now or in the near future. It will also make you wonder, make you worry and occassionally, make you laugh. It’s a good thing to understand the times we live in, to see what the courts are saying and to read between the lines. You can figure out for yourself if you like where things are heading.