Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

267 A.D. 64

Moore v. Gallup

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · decided 1943-11-10

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1943-11-10

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently November 2012

4 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions

4019431950196019701980199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Hill, P. J.

¶1(dissenting). The order should be reversed and the prayer of the petition granted. The several statutes which are known collectively as the Sullivan Law, were enacted in an effort to prevent, or make more difficult, the obtaining of weapons by the criminal classes or by those who might use them in connection with crime. If the statute is extended beyond that scope and field, it is unconstitutional and infringes the right of the people to keep and hear arms. The need of the citizens to become proficient in the use of firearms is now brought strikingly to our attention. Six hundred thousand of our citizens in cities have sat in shelters at the top of tall buildings and in the country on lonely hillsides every hour, day and night, for more than eighteen months. Unless the home defense authorities were foolishly and unnecessarily panic-stricken there was some danger, no matter how slight, that a foreign foe would land or disloyal residents would take to the air in a hostile way. Under those circumstances, a man of the type of this petitioner who could shoot with accuracy, would he a more useful citizen than one who, if attacked, could only throw a bootjack at his assailant.

¶2Crapser, Bliss and Hefferxan, JJ., concur with Schenck, J.; Hill, P. J., dissents with a memorandum.

¶3Order affirmed, without costs.

/267/ad/64 · .json · Public domain