|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
December 31, 2013, 08:58 PM | #1 | ||
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
NY SAFE Act upheld at District Court
Chief U.S. District Judge William M. Skretny has ruled on the constitutionality of New York's SAFE Act [pdf]. Here's the summary:
Oh, and this one was odd: Quote:
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe Last edited by Tom Servo; December 31, 2013 at 09:06 PM. |
||
December 31, 2013, 09:04 PM | #2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 28, 2011
Location: Virginia Beach, VA
Posts: 433
|
Tom, understand I do my absolute best to speak lawyer, and I actually just read the whole PDF, but can you spell out what exactly this means in the broadest overall picture with regards to "the way ahead"?
Does the last bullet mean that guys with magazines greater than 7rds can now/immediately start fully loading them since that part was , or is there another legal hurdle? But as an initial matter, New York fails to explain its decision to set the maximum at seven rounds, which appears to be a largely arbitrary number. And even if a person using a weapon in self-defense needs only a few rounds, and even if that is a rational reason for adopting the law, under intermediate scrutiny there must a “substantial relation” between the means and the end. The State’s justification for the law need not be perfect, but it must be “exceedingly persuasive. This peripheral rationale, which is possibly meant to protect bystanders when a firearm is being discharged lawfully, or victims of impromptu acts of violence, is largely unsupported by evidence before this Court. It thus fails the more demanding test and must stuck down. Again, sorry for not having the background. Last edited by SamNavy; December 31, 2013 at 09:27 PM. |
December 31, 2013, 09:16 PM | #3 |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
Essentially, you can put a muzzle brake on a rifle because the legislature misspelled it in their haste to write the law. I'm not kidding.
Also, if New Yorkers have 10-round magazines, they can load all ten. Everything else was upheld.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
December 31, 2013, 09:28 PM | #4 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 28, 2011
Location: Virginia Beach, VA
Posts: 433
|
Roger that... sorry, was just editing my post to clarify, but you just did... so when you mentioned "off to the 2nd circuit after this", what does it mean? Does this mean we're going to file another lawsuit somewhere and run it through a higher court?
|
December 31, 2013, 09:48 PM | #5 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 24, 2007
Location: CNY
Posts: 790
|
this is NOT a victory. This is a Trojan horse that will simply lead to more encroachment on the rights of new yorkers. By repealing only the magazine limit portion of the law, NYS has effectively divided the camp of pro 2A folk as now many people that WERE largely inconvenienced will find the new law bearable. others will be delighted at what they view as a victory and decide we should cut our losses and give up with what we have. either way the freedom movement in NY will be greatly compromised unless this is seen for what it is. Tyranny. Giving me back a percentage of my freedom back, when you never should have taken it away in the first place is not a victory. it is an insult.
|
December 31, 2013, 10:00 PM | #6 | ||
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
||
December 31, 2013, 10:12 PM | #7 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 24, 2007
Location: CNY
Posts: 790
|
Quote:
|
|
December 31, 2013, 10:18 PM | #8 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 24, 2007
Location: CNY
Posts: 790
|
I do have one question that I could not figure out from the ruling. Are pre 94 mags that hold more than 10 rounds now legal again?
|
December 31, 2013, 11:00 PM | #9 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
Quote:
That said, there wasn't an expectation of victory. This was just a step in the process that had to be taken.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
December 31, 2013, 11:12 PM | #10 |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,479
|
I wonder if this ruling will have any effect on any of the three (four?) lawsuits that should be getting into the court in January against the new Connecticut laws.
|
January 1, 2014, 12:09 PM | #11 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
Interesting but what do I know? But this is the Internet.
1. It points out some stupid thing but buys into wily old bird Scalia's rotten egg of reasonable restrictions. 2. The point about dangerousness once again (my favorite rant) points the fallacy of the modern sporting rifle blather. The 2nd Amend. exists because of the efficacious nature of the firearm. Modern sporting rifle apologists try to make the gun look less dangerous. That of course makes it logical to ban mag sizes, various mechanisms, etc. You have to buy that gun is dangerous as part of the raison d'etre of the 2nd Amend. You have only to look at Zumbo or Metcalf for folks who don't get it.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
January 1, 2014, 05:26 PM | #12 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Posts: 438
|
if you lived in NY you would have no trouble believing the judicial branch both state and federal are riddled with corruption. decisions like this are torturously crafted to fit political and ideological goals.
|
January 1, 2014, 10:53 PM | #13 |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
Another case of a judge claiming to apply intermediate scrutiny to the Second Amendment and then actually applying rational basis.
To meet intermediate scrutiny, it must be shown that the law or policy being challenged furthers an important government interest in a way that is substantially related to that interest. Yet the only part of the NY SAFE Act that failed was an arbitrary number that they didn't even offer evidence to support? The sad thing is that particular trick is a fairly common one among lower court judges trying to avoid any upsetting of the apple cart. Not to mention that in this case, it gives Cuomo a face-saving out for a stupid, unenforceable law that was bad policy. |
January 2, 2014, 01:14 PM | #14 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Quote:
So much so, that the Appellate Courts are using it. This rebellion of the lower courts, in the face of Heller/McDonald, will not stop until the SCOTUS puts an end to it. And at the present time, it appears that the Supreme Court will not take any cases to correct this situation. I hate to say it, but with the defection of C.J. Roberts, in the Sebelius case, the so-called Heller 5 may in reality be the Heller 4. |
|
January 2, 2014, 03:17 PM | #15 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 16, 2008
Posts: 1,184
|
It seems to me the courts are deciding these cases on the basis that the claimed activity isn't protected. While they are are nominally giving them protected status and then using rational basis and calling it intermediate scrutiny.
I wrote a law review comment on what constitutes protected arms and activities. It didn't get selected for publication. If any academic or legal types would like to edit it I would be happy to have it posted here. One specific thing I take issue with is this notion that making a weapon more dangerous somehow allows the government to regulate them out of existence. If anyone is interested in it let me know. It is rather rough. |
January 2, 2014, 05:28 PM | #16 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
I'm not so sure I trust Scalia, given his prose. I regarded him as Fudd-lite. He shoots birdies and supports some plain, vanilla SD guns.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
January 2, 2014, 11:32 PM | #17 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 27, 2008
Posts: 2,199
|
Quote:
We really need to have carry recognized as a right. We need to do it in a narrow way, so that squishy feelings about people running around with MP5Ks and mowing down people over parking disputes (or whatever ridiculous arguments are made) don't get serious consideration. Then, once SCOTUS would need to overturn its own precedence, do you go for the details. Show that a college campus isn't the same as the secure area of an airport or a prison. etc. etc. Only after they say carry is actually a right do you pick out the arbitrary policies that annoy us so much. Unfortunately, the "Hail Mary" play is likely to fail or have a poison pill inserted into the ruling. The incremental approach probably won't get as much as a successful "Hail Mary," but it is less likely to fail completely and set us back for a hundred years. |
|
January 3, 2014, 07:07 AM | #18 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 10, 2012
Posts: 3,881
|
I wonder what promises or how much of Bloomburg's money was used to get this ruling ?
What part of shall not be infringed doesn't this judge understand ? A previous post was correct this is no victory. Was allowing 10 rounds in a magazine meant to be throwing us a bone and hoping we will be satisfied and go away ? |
January 3, 2014, 08:11 AM | #19 |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
Apparently the NY DA in the adjacent district has said he'll ignore the ruling anyway and continue to prosecute for violations of the 7rd limit. So even less of a victory then it looks like at this point.
|
January 3, 2014, 08:50 AM | #20 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 21, 2010
Location: Rome, NY
Posts: 941
|
The DA in Onondaga county says that the ruling only applies to the western district of the state of NY, so he will still prosecute loading more than 7 rounds. So much for legal integrity
__________________
Jim Page Cogito, ergo armatum sum |
January 3, 2014, 02:35 PM | #21 |
Member
Join Date: March 11, 2007
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 49
|
Not So Fast
it's even worse!
According to New York state law, the state does not recognize lower federal court decisions when they conflict with New York laws. I believe New York is the only state with this provision. Back to seven.
__________________
"There is nothing so frightening as ignorance in action." |
January 3, 2014, 02:40 PM | #22 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 15, 2009
Posts: 298
|
For my part, I trust Scalia. I've seen and heard him in public, and he first of all is deeply supportive of the Constitution as written, and has taken pains to interpret it in the light of the Founders' intentions. He has published the methods of his reading of the law, and seems to stand behind it.
Further, he has supported the concept of citizens' possession of present-day military weaponry. Drawing lines over such things as rocket launchers does not seem to me to be overly restrictive. Leaving doors open (in Heller) for further discussion of weapon carry is a concession, in my mind, to the necessity of attaining a majority in a court that teeters on a knife-edge. He has been known to take fellow Justices to the range, for the purpose of introducing them to the realities of the shooting sports. This is far from a bad thing. Beyond all that, he seems to be the most vocal, outspoken and articulate supporter of our 2A rights on the SCOTUS. At least, so I see him. |
March 27, 2014, 09:31 AM | #23 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 23, 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,955
|
Any updates on this?
I found this article today claiming the NY State Police will not enforce the 7 round limit until further court rulings. http://www.mytwintiers.com/story/d/s...jEOBSt4KxOeSaA |
March 27, 2014, 10:03 AM | #24 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Updates? I haven't looked beyond knowing that there will be an appeal. Usually, the first appellate brief won't be seen for anywhere between 3 months to a year.
There have also been reports that some Sheriffs have said they will enforce the law, that what the court struck down, only applies to that particular federal district.... Sound familiar? |
April 8, 2014, 02:43 PM | #25 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 12, 2005
Posts: 3,733
|
I live on Long Island and know the only 2A victory this state can ever expect will come from a court outside of NY and forced upon the state. Everything before such a decision is just going through the motions.
__________________
"Religions are all alike - founded upon fables and mythologies." Thomas Jefferson "The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." Benjamin Franklin |
|
|