There’s That Pesky Constitution Again!

Queens Councilman Peter Vallone Jr.’s bold anti-graffiti law has been put on hold because it may be “unconstitutional”:

The three-judge Second Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously upheld a district judge’s decision to table the spray-paint ban while the lower judge assesses its constitutionality.

Dan Perez, who represents the seven artists who brought the case, said the law, designed to combat graffiti, is ill-advised.

“This law was flawed policy, and the decision is a huge victory for these artists who have done nothing wrong,” Perez said.

But City Councilman Peter Vallone Jr. (D-Queens), who authored the law, said he expects it to be upheld ultimately.

“This is a minor bump in the road on the way to cleaner streets,” Vallone said, noting that most of the measure, including banning minors from possessing spray paint, certain markers and etching acid, remains unchallenged.

The portion under scrutiny bars spray paint for people between 18 and 21, but makes exceptions for those who need the cans for their jobs. He said artists can also lawfully possess spray paint on private property.

Although Mayor Bloomberg has expressed doubts about the law’s constitutionality, a city Law Department source noted courts allow age to be used as a criteria in regulating tobacco and alcohol and could treat spray paint similarly.

Opponents of the law say the overly broad legislation would prevent them from making legitimate art:

Linzie Vicenty, 20, a student at the School of Visual Arts and one of the plaintiffs, said she uses spray paint on canvases and Plexiglas for her work. She admitted drawing inspiration from graffiti, but said her art is legal.

“There’s a time and a place to paint, and on other people’s property may not be the time or the place,” said Vicenty, of Bedford-Stuyvesant, Brooklyn. “I’m not doing anything wrong, and I shouldn’t be treated like a criminal.”

Other people’s property may not be the time or the place? It almost sounds like Hizzoner Dean there . . .