Today is Friday, August 01, 2014rss RSS feed
The Faces Of Tyranny In New York

Federal Court Upholds Ny Ban On Assault Weapons, But Strikes Down Magazine Limit

AmmoLand Gun News

AmmoLand Gun News

Manasquan, NJ --(Ammoland.com)- New York’s rights infringing ban on assault weapons is constitutional, but it cannot limit a gun magazine to seven bullets, a federal court judge ruled today.

The ruling by Chief U.S. District Judge William M. Skretny in Buffalo found that New York’s gun-control law, called the SAFE Act, that restricts assault weapons doesn’t infringe on Second Amendment rights. But the judge tossed a provision that limits a magazine that can hold 10 rounds to just seven bullets.

“This Court finds that the challenged provisions of the SAFE Act — including the act’s definition and regulation of assault weapons and its ban on large-capacity magazines — further the state’s important interest in public safety, and do not impermissibly infringe on Plaintiffs’ Second Amendment rights,” Skretny ruled.

“But, the seven-round limit fails the relevant test because the purported link between the ban and the state’s interest is tenuous, strained, and unsupported in the record.”

The NY State Rifle & Pistol Association and other gun-rights groups filed court papers in March to challenge the SAFE-Act soon after it was passed by the state Legislature and signed into law by Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who championed the law as a response to the Newtown school shootings a year ago.

The court ruling is likely to the first round in a protracted legal battle over the law, which has been widely protested by gun-rights activists.

The lawsuit claimed that the law infringed on “fundamental constitutional rights to lawfully possess, keep, bear and use firearms for self-defense and other lawful purposes.”

The law enacted tougher restrictions on gun sales, required added registration of gun possession and dropped the number of bullets allowed in a magazine from 10 to 7.

Hat-tip http://polhudson.lohudblogs.com

New York Safe Act Court Ruling

  • 6 User comments to “Federal Court Strikes Down Magazine Limit but Upholds NY Assault Weapons Ban”

    1. oldgringo on January 1, 2014 at 9:43 AM said:

      Federal judges have been so corrupted through out the years it’s hard to find one that would support our Constitution re: the second amendment…If NY can ban assault rifles it can ban any firearm it chooses to include cigarette
      lighters that looks like guns…OMG…I just rememberd…Gun look alike cigarette lighters are banned in New York…Next thing will be the kid’s water guns…Are we beginning to get the picture of how the CommieCRats in this country have corrupted our federal judges all the way to the supreme court…Chief Justice Roberts comes to mind!

    2. Feral judges are politicians that get a free ride for their lifetimes… they are corrupt because of their status. It’s a God thing… they think they are God and can’t tolerate the Constitution to tell them what to do. We need to make these guys responsible for their actions and remove the lifetime tenure. They’re not accountable to anyone, same as the feral mullahs of the so-called supreme court… they call lies truth, and turn their backs on the Amerikan people. Judges in nu yoik have been like that forever. Run them back to communist russia.

    3. This is good news of sorts. Any reversal of a law which infringes upon our Constitutional rights is good. However, the reasoning is somewhat troubling because it leaves room for the gun grabbers to make amends and work to reimpose the limit.

      I can’t help but notice another practice here which is continually working against the Second Amendment. The term “Assault Weapon” in this case is completely out of place.

      We’ve had a ban on assault weapons since June 26, 1934 when the National Firearms Act (NFA) was enacted. What New York has recently banned is modern sporting rifles which happen to resemble assault weapons. This amounts to a ban of cosmetic features, rather than capability, which they frequently use as a tool to incite fear.

      Although the 2nd Amendment specifically forbids any infringement of firearms ownership, we all recognize the limited application of true assault weapons. The argument for unfettered ownership of fully automatic firearms would be strained in every situation that comes to my mind.

      Allowing legislators, gun-grabbers and media to continue with the practice of villainizing semi-automatic sporting rifles as something of a military nature is completely irresponsible. It serves no purpose other than gaining public support for gun control under false pretenses.

    4. Gov Cuomo is a commie.

      Take the win and continue to fight the rest of this garbage legislation.

    5. I don’t like the continued use of “Assault Weapons” as meaning a rifle or pistol designed for military use and then re-designed for civilian use, with semi-automatic action and removable mags of course, as inherently criminal for lawful citizens use. Many rifles use designs created from the Mauser rifle, and the Springfield’03? Or the M1 Garand, which they have banned importation of using the same “government interest” clause.
      The court also spent a lot of time validating the gun control stats for AR-15 style rifles, as being valid concerns, a Red Flag for 2ndA supporters, for regulation by the State. Yes they have been used by mentally unstable persons, not necessarily criminals, but no mention is made that these people will always fall between the cracks in a background check looking for criminals, in a law abiding group of citizens, and not set up to screen criminally intent mentally unstable people.
      I don’t like the use and implication that the “state” has the only right based on “government interests” of public safety and crime prevention to provide for our safety. It’s a backdoor means to undermine portions of the 2ndA that have traditionally been upheld as implying our right to self defense. The court comes right out and states there is no 2ndA infringement by restricting access to arms based on military design style and they leave wide open one of the Bradly Center ideas that a “time” constraint is inherent in the 2ndA, and therefore the AR-15 platform design can be regulated.
      The court correctly states that the 2ndA does imply a use of current commonly available arms, but leaves open the banning of an arm if it can be implied to be less than “common”. They also leave unsaid that to be effective against tyrannical governance it also implies modern “state-of-the-art” arms “shall not be infringed”. Which is of course in direct line with supporting “government interest” in regulating arms ownership.
      This is definite Win for “government interest”. They have set up a court ruling that allows for and implies government has the right under the 2ndA to restrict the type and design of arms for self defense politically and privately. And the registration of any arm that could be implied to have “public safety and crime prevention” goals.
      Regardless of other possible misuses. The court made it plane that the plaintiff would need to show that “all” regulations in the Act were “unconstitutional” before the Act could be found unconstitutional. A very big difference in previous court rulings. Not a good change for the protection of individual liberties.

    6. As I reread this Act. The court seems to side with “intent”. No matter the consequences of the actual law, it’s “ok” because the intent was good. But the intent was to stop a specific situation, which will not slow down or stop violent crime. If all violent crime was committed by lawful owners of an AR-15 style rifle, this may have some effect. This law has the effect of disarming the lawful citizen, reducing their ability to purchase ammo and leave us unarmed against unlawful government power takeovers. Not to forget personal self defense issues.
      I can’t believe the Plaintiffs did not have the most current violent crime stats and the data on gun crime, but the preamble basically says they did not come prepared and the State did. And dismisses their arguments based on inadequate data? The court ignored the data presented and did not acknowledge the presented data in its discussion. It operated in a non logical prejudges view of the subject without regard for the actual facts, but it did act with full knowledge of what this ACT would do to lawful citizens. It will be used in later attacks on the 2ndA to come. Therefore its agenda was not stopping or reducing violent mass murder of innocent life but forwarding progressive views on gun control of lawful citizens of New York and in the future, Citizens of these United States.

    Leave a Comment

    • Sign up Ammoland for your Inbox

      Daily Digest

      Monthly Newsletter

    • Recent Comments

      • dachu3: While not advocating for abortion, the docs now want to safe kids by destroying 2A. Why don’t you move...
      • askeptic: When putting yourself into a situation that may result in your arrest and detainment, wear your best...
      • Chris: Not surprised they had problems, when you have stupid union thugs making guns you’re going to have...
      • Lava: Whenever I click these videos I get *an error occurred* You should put a little more about it in the text.
      • Dennis Swiatek: I am a retired former resident of the city of Milwaukee,David Clarke is the finest person to hold a...
    • Social Activity

    • Most Popular Posts

      • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
    Copyright 2014 AmmoLand.com Shooting Sports News | Sitemap | Μολὼν λαβέ

    Win a Daniel Defense DDM4v9 Rifle

    Subscribe and receive our emails , the drawing will be August 15, 2014 maybe you will be the lucky shooter receiving a Daniel Defense DDM4v9 Rifle. For more information visit the Daniel Defense promotional page.
    Monthly email subscription from Ammoland
    13637112
    14235736