Osterweil v. Bartlett, NY State

[Al Norris]

Top NY court lifts handgun permit residency limit - Times Union

Mr. Osterwiel has won in the NY Court of Appeals, the NYS equivalent of a Supreme Court.

The Court took a certified question from the 2nd Circuit back in January of 2013. While the Court ruled that part-time residents could not be denied their right to arms as a class, it stopped short of declaring the law, as previously interpreted, unconstitutional on 2A grounds.

The case will now go back to the CA2 to decide how this ruling impacts the federal case.

The decision: http://www.scribd.com/doc/176284968/COA-decision-Osterweil-v-Bartlett

 

[press1280]

The case will probably be disposed of. CA2 sent this to the NY court to do just this-sidestep the 2A claim, but grant the permit to make the case go away.

 

[KyJim]

It's still a victory even if not decided on 2A grounds. It is preferable, IMO, for court to construe a statute, rather than a constitution, if it can do so. This is the more "conservative" legal approach.

 

[JimDandy]

What does

We hold that certification of this statute’s interpretation to the New York Court of Appeals is warranted.

mean in layman's terms? Certification of a statute's interpretation? Is warranted the normal required/reasonable/etc warranted or?

 

[Armorer-at-Law]

What does
Quote:
We hold that certification of this statute’s interpretation to the New York Court of Appeals is warranted.
mean in layman's terms?

When a federal court has to make a decision that is based on state law and how the case would be determined under state law is unclear (the law or issue has never been addressed by the state's highest court), it can "certify" the question to the state's highest court for a ruling on the question before the federal court proceeds. The state court does not have to take the case and decide the question if doing so is not appropriate (i.e., warranted). The first thing the state court decides is whether it should take the case and decide the question.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

As far as it goes, this appears to be a good decision (for people who maintain vacation homes in New York state).

In May 2009, Judge Bartlett denied Osterweil's application for a handgun license, relying on Penal Law § 400 (3)(a) and an Appellate Division decision, Mahoney v Lewis (199 AD2d734 [3d Dept 1993]), which held that "as used in this statute the term residence is equivalent to domicile" (id. at 735). Judge Bartlett further ruled that such a domicile requirement was constitutional, under Heller, as a lawful regulatory measure.

Apparently, the county judge took a statute that clearly says "residence" and interpreted it to require "domicile," thereby putting NY state at odds with BATFE guidance, which recognizes vacation residences as "residences" during whatever portion(s) of the year the owners live there. The NY state higher court has now read the law and determined that the law says what the law says, not what the county magistrate wants it to say.

I see that as a win, albeit a win of very limited application.