Second Circuit rules in favor of firearms dealers on procedural due process:

[tombogan03884]

http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_08_16-2009_08_22.shtml#1250527213

 [1]Spinelli v. City of New York was decided on August 7, by Judges
   Calabresi and Walker. Judge Sotomayor had been on the panel, but did
   not participate in the decision, due to her elevation to the Supreme
   Court.
   Angela Spinelli had been doing business a licensed firearms dealer in
   the Bronx for decades. Pursuant to New York City law, the police
   conducted an unannounced inspection of her premises in October 2001.
   They found security violations, seized all her firearms, and suspended
   her license for selling firearms. Spinelli fixed the security
   violations, and 58 days after the suspension, her license and firearms
   were restored.
   In the lawsuit arising from the NYCPD conduct, the Second Circuit
   ruled:

     1. There was no Fourth Amendment violation to the unannounced
     search, because it was conducted pursuant to the NYC Code, and
     because firearms dealers, as a pervasively regulated business, have
     little expectation of freedom from warrantless inspection.
     2. Spinelli was not entitled to due process prior to the license
     suspension and the seizure of her inventory, because of the
     necessity for rapid action to protect public safety.
     3. Spinelli was entitled to post-seizure due process, including
     notice (of what the specific security violations were) and a
     hearing. New York City refused to provide this, and accordingly,
     summary judgement should be entered against the City on this issue,
     and the district court should make a determination regarding
     damages. The fact that Spinelli was able to hire a lawyer to
     negotiate with the City does not cure the City's due process
     violation.
     4. Spinelli had a property interest in her firearms business
     license. In contrast to a NY State handgun carry license (for which
     there is nearly unlimited discretion for revocation), a firearms
     dealer license is a property right, because the grounds for
     revocation are limited.
     5. Because Spinelli has a valid federal claim (post-seizure due
     process), the federal district court also has jurisdiction over
     Spinelli's state law claim of tortious interference with business
     relations. The case in district court should proceed forward on
     this issue.

   Items 3-5 reversed the decision of district court Judge Richard Casey.
   I have not read the briefs in this case, so it is possible that there
   are problems in the decision which are not obvious merely from reading
   the appellate opinion. However, within the four corners of the
   opinion, the decision seems generally correct based on existing
   precedent. Not that I necessarily agree with all the precedent, but
   the Second Circuit's application of that precedent appears reasonable.

References

   1. http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/621205aa-8098-4fe6-8c7a-9b298d7a3b0e/1/doc/07-1237-cv_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/621205aa-8098-4fe6-8c7a-9b298d7a3b0e/1/hilite/

[Pathfinder]

1. There was no Fourth Amendment violation to the unannounced search, because it was conducted pursuant to the NYC Code, and because firearms dealers, as a pervasively regulated business, have little expectation of freedom from warrantless inspection.

Since when does a city ordinance overrule the US Constitution? Bad statement by the 2nd Circuit.

2. Spinelli was not entitled to due process prior to the license suspension and the seizure of her inventory, because of the necessity for rapid action to protect public safety.

Wrong here too - this was a fishing expedition by the inspectors who came in and then found alleged violations. Since they were corrected, apparently rather easily, one can presume they were of a technical nature, and therefore the "public safety" nonsense was just that - bullshit!