SAFE at court
The Court finds that the challenged provisions of the SAFE Act, including the Act’s definition and regulation of assault weapons and its ban on high-capacity magazines, further the state’s important interest in public safety and do not impermissibly infringe on Plaintiff’s Second Amendment rights,
Ah, so it permissibly infringes on second amendment rights. Got it.
December 31st, 2013 at 4:23 pm
Didn’t a federal judge decide the other day that the NSA Metadata snooping wasn’t a violation of the 4th amendment because it was “the government’s counter-punch to terrorists”?
December 31st, 2013 at 5:16 pm
Not a surprising ruling, really; if it looks like an assault rifle – even if it isn’t one – then by gee whiz, it must be an assault rifle and the law still applies. then they’ll amend it to state that if it might be mistaken for an assault rifle – even if it clearly, most definitely isn’t one – then by jim zumbo it must be one and the law still applies.
Precedence is those laws that were dearest to the democrats for so long, often lumped together under the name of Jim Crow: if it looks like a negro – even if it isn’t one – well then, it’s a negro.
I’m guessing that ruling by confusion is their stock in trade, and they must like it that way.
December 31st, 2013 at 6:47 pm
Taken from one of the posts on http://www.nyfirearms.com/forums/laws-politics/68037-federal-judge-upholds-new-york-s-ban-assault-weapons-nysrpa-case-update-8.html:
http://imgsrv.wben.com/image/wben2/UserFiles/File/194882730-Safe-Act-Court-Case.pdf
Semiautomatic versions of Automatic weapons – Out (unconstitutionally vague)
7 Round magazine limit – Out (fails intermediate scrituny)
Muzzle [Brake] – Out (meaningless, doesn’t exist)
“And if” clause of magazine possession – Out (unintelligible)
The rest of NY-SAFE stands, including registration deadlines.
December 31st, 2013 at 9:07 pm
Question: Will New Yorkers be allowed to own and use firearms in the year 2020?
Answer: The question is irrelevant because everyone in New York will have moved elsewhere by then due to the cost of living.
January 1st, 2014 at 1:01 am
Permissibly infringe?
But the 2nd Amendment SPECIFICALLY SAYS… “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.”
Duh.. what part of that does the judge not understand?
January 1st, 2014 at 11:55 am
Note he also ruled against registry of [fully] automatic pistols. I guess my WWII Schmeisser MP38 machinen-pistol and MAC-10 System, maybe my Uzi, are OK then. Well, except for the Federal stuff about full-auto licensing…
January 1st, 2014 at 1:24 pm
This ruling, and so many others like it, turns the US Constitution on its head by such a simple means: collective rights overrule individual rights.
The same method has been used by all totalitarian governments that state the social good requires the subjugation of the individual.
This is bullshit on stilts and needs to be overturned, pronto, with a reiteration of the primacy of individual rights for US citizens over any government concept of social good.
January 1st, 2014 at 4:20 pm
Did the judge actually DEFINE what an “assault weapon” is?
Because if he didn’t, how can they ban them? Too many politicians have defined it differently.
January 1st, 2014 at 5:38 pm
Hard day here in NYS. Happy New Year.
January 2nd, 2014 at 5:30 am
Its almost as if courts exist to make people think government infringements are legitimate.
January 2nd, 2014 at 9:16 am
“the state’s important interest in public safety”
But…but…I thought ANOTHER judge decided that “the state” was not liable for “failure to protect….”
January 2nd, 2014 at 8:16 pm
Cargo: The judge didn’t – because theres was no need to.
Judges don’t do things like define a general term for every use while deciding on a particular law’s validity; they use the definition provided in the law.
If there isn’t one, they rely on common usage or throw it out as vague.
But that’s not the case here, since the SAFE Act did define the terms that the Judge upheld; a laundry-list of irrelevant cosmetic features.
(Likewise, contra CaptDMO, that there’s no ‘duty to protect’ that creates liability is irrelevant to an ‘interest in public safety’ for purposes of justifying a law.
The State does have a legitimate interest in public safety*, but not a duty to keep every individual safe from all harms**.)
(* I don’t think it’s nearly as broad as e.g. this judge seems to, nor would I do the calculus of that interest vs. Constitutional rights the way he seems to, but the interest in public safety is there and valid, even from a libertarian perspective – the difference is what powers the State is granted to interfere with people’s lives in the name of that interest; how limited or sweeping they are.
** Especially since even a total Panopticon police state still couldn’t do that.)