You are here: / / Statute Which Elevates Criminal Possession of a Weapon to a C Felony, Even...

Statute Which Elevates Criminal Possession of a Weapon to a C Felony, Even When Possession is in the Home, Does Not Violate the Second Amendment

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Smith, the Court of Appeals determined that the statute which elevates possession of a weapon when previously convicted of a crime to a class C felony, even if possession is in the home, did not violate the Second Amendment right to bear arms:

Intermediate scrutiny requires us to ask whether a challenged statute bears a substantial relationship to the achievement of an important governmental objective (Clark v Jeter, 486 US 456, 461 [1988]).  Penal Law § 265.03 (3), making it a class C felony for anyone previously convicted of any crime to possess an unlicensed, loaded firearm in his home or elsewhere, easily passes this test.  The statute does not, it must be remembered, forbid anyone convicted of any misdemeanor from possessing a gun on pain of class C felony punishment; most misdemeanants — including the present defendant, assuming that resisting arrest was his only prior crime — are eligible for licenses to have guns in their homes.

It is beyond dispute that preventing the criminal use of firearms is an important government objective; and keeping guns away from people who have shown they cannot be trusted to obey the law is a means substantially related to that end.  More specifically, to punish severely a convicted criminal who, though eligible for a license, again violates the law by obtaining an unlicensed gun is a means well-suited to the end of assuring that lawbreakers do not have firearms.  People v Hughes, 184, CtApp 11-19-13

 

You might also like
THE MAJORITY HELD THE APPELLATE DIVISION PROPERLY REFUSED TO HEAR APPELLANT FATHER’S APPEAL IN THIS TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS PROCEEDING BECAUSE FATHER WAS IN DEFAULT (NO APPEAL LIES FROM A DEFAULT); THE DISSENT ARGUED FATHER WAS NOT IN DEFAULT BECAUSE HE APPEARED BY COUNSEL (CT APP).
DEFENSE COUNSEL SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TWO CROSS-EXAMINE THE TWO POLICE OFFICERS WHO IDENTIFIED THE DEFENDANT AS THE SHOOTER ABOUT ALLEGATIONS OF THE OFFICERS’ DISHONESTY ARISING FROM OTHER COURT PROCEEDINGS (CT APP).
DEFENDANT WAS CHARGED WITH MANSLAUGHTER SECOND BASED ON THE DEATH OF A PERSON TO WHOM DEFENDANT SOLD HEROIN; THE GRAND JURY EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT EITHER THE “RECKLESS” ELEMENT OF MANSLAUGHTER SECOND OR THE “CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE” ELEMENT OF CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE (CT APP).
HUSBAND WAS IN THE NAVY FOR ABOUT NINE YEARS BEFOR MARRIAGE; DURING THE MARRIAGE HE LEFT THE NAVY AND JOINED THE FOREIGN SERVICE WHICH ALLOWED HIM TO “PURCHASE” CREDITS FOR HIS TIME IN THE NAVY TO AUGMENT HIS FOREIGN SERVICE PENSION; THE PORTION OF HIS PENSION ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE PRE-MARRIAGE SERVICE IN THE NAVY IS MARITAL, NOT SEPARATE, PROPERTY (CT APP).
DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO QUESTION WITNESSES WITH THE AID OF STANDBY COUNSEL WAS NOT AN UNEQUIVOCAL REQUEST TO REPRESENT HIMSELF REQUIRING A SEARCHING INQUIRY, DEFENDANT’S WISH TO PRESENT PSYCHIATRIC TESTIMONY TO QUESTION THE VOLUNTARINESS OF HIS CONFESSION WAS PROPERLY DENIED BECAUSE CPL 250.10 NOTICE WAS NOT PROVIDED (CT APP).
NON-MANDATORY STANDARDS FOR THE GAP BETWEEN A SUBWAY TRAIN AND THE PLATFORM PROPERLY ADMITTED IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE; HOWEVER THE EVIDENCE OF PRIOR GAP-RELATED ACCIDENTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (CT APP).
IN AFFIRMING THE MURDER CONVICTION OF A 14-YEAR-OLD, THE COURT OF APPEALS HELD THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY EXCLUDED EXPERT TESTIMONY ABOUT ADOLESCENT BRAIN DEVELOPMENT AND BEHAVIOR (CT APP).
Exclusive Access Not Required for Constructive Possession

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

“Home or Business Exception” to Criminal Possession of a Weapon Does Not... Experts’ Use of Unreliable Hearsay in Article 10 Trial Violated Due Proce...