Federal Judge Rules NY Magazine Limit UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

[NY Indy]

Not all goods news, but it's something positive....

 

http://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/VoteUp/2013/12/31/federal-court-upholds-ny-ban-on-assault-weapons-but-strikes-down-magazine-limit/4265453/

Edited December 31, 2013 by NY Indy

[UpstateNomad90]

It is a start, Lets see how the other lawsuits playout

[Woodjr55]

It's a start I agree but the judge also rules that the safe act doesn't infringe on the second amendment which doesn't help the cause

[dbHunterNY]

I'd like to read his complete ruling and reasoning behind the ruling... if it even exists.  the 7 round limit was simply an obvious part that should've been overturned.  the act as a whole is still messed up beyond belief.

[bubba]

I victory however very small.  Now according to this judge restricting bullet numbers is not good, but restricting what guns you can own is.  I would not put a lot of faith in this ruling.  he picked a vary small part to say was bad just to say something was.  But ammo background checks is ok and "assault weapon" bans is ok.  Beware of a wolf in sheeps clothing.  He only left a very small part open to debate in this ruling.  If you are happy that he says carrying 30 in a gun you can not own, look closer.  So in the end they say ok keep 10 in your handgun it is ok,.  That is no where enough for me.

[sits in trees]

The rest of the law (safe act) was upheld which is crap. But this is only the beginning, fighting for your rights against a determined enemy isn't going to be a walk in the park and isn't for the squeamish, hang in their guys/gals and stick with the cause...

[bowaholic]

I agree its a start and this shows that there is a chance that we can get the SAFE act repealed!!

[bubba]

Believe me this is not a start.  This is a set back.  All that he said was bad was the part where you can have more bullets in your gun.  But you still can not get the gun they go in.  This is far from good.  Very far.  Look at ti this way.  He is saying all but the number of bullets is ok with the safe act.  Really?  There is no victory here.  He threw a little bone to make us happy.  I for one am not happy

Edited December 31, 2013 by bubba

[wooffer]

Of course buying ammo is still going to be very expensive and difficult. Online ammo sales look like they will stop in the next week or so. Here is a link to LG explaining their position.

 

http://us1.campaign-archive1.com/?u=f58d3c71ff52b50e1aa43dc1e&id=ef2003cce1&e=448f1ad856

[bowaholic]

How can you say its not a start and very far from good?  I'm not happy either as I'd love for this SAFE B.S. to go away completely too but just a few months ago many feared that we wouldn't even be able to carry ten in a clip and now we will be able to...and if we can get one part of it corrected then there is a possibility that we can have more corrective actions taken.

 

Believe me this is not a start.  This is a set back.  All that he said was bad was the part where you can have more bullets in your gun.  But you still can not get the gun they go in.  This is far from good.  Very far.  Look at ti this way.  He is saying all but the number of bullets is ok with the safe act.  Really?  There is no victory here.  He threw a little bone to make us happy.  I for one am not happy

[bubba]

As I said but I will repeat it again. The only part of the law he found unconstitutional was the number of bullets you can have in a magazine. Banning guns was not unconstitutional?  You find that ok.  Please look up the background of this judge. He is a member of  a gun control group.   Every group in Ny to include NYSRPA and SCOPE are saying this is bad.  No one will argue any part now but the number of bullets you can have in a mag.  trust me I do not mean ot sound crass, but I am very well connected with people in the know on a first name basis.  You are falling for this just as they hoped.  This is slap in the face to gun owners. It is not ok that you can now have a 30 round mag for your ar, but you can not buy the ar.  Look big not at this little bone.

[Nomad]

Wow I've been waiting hours for this to show up,here...To those of us closely following the cases, this is not good news.... Yes we got to,go back to ten rounds,our lawyers thoughts were for a lot more. But we keep,fighting and hope the SCOTUS agrees to hear it,although some feel they won't touch it.

If they do,it needs to reach them before new appointments for it to go our way.

If you want to read the judges findings here ya go .

http://kingofallwebs.com/Skretny/Skretny-Decision.pdf

It is not a start because the lawyers bringing the cases say the same thing.....

Go over to NYfirearms.com and you can read their comments and follow the cases.

Edited January 1, 2014 by Larry302

[bubba]

these three paragraphs say it all and why I stand by this is not good.

 

 

 

In resolving the pending motions, this Court notes that whether regulating firearms

is wise or warranted is not a judicial question; it is a political one. This Court’s function is

thus limited to resolving whether New York’s elected representatives acted within the

confines of the United States Constitution in passing the SAFE Act. Undertaking that task,

and applying the governing legal standards, the majority of the challenged provisions

withstand constitutional scrutiny.

As explained in more detail below, although so-called “assault weapons” and largecapacity

magazines, as defined in the Safe Act, may — in some fashion — be “in common

use,” New York has presented considerable evidence that its regulation of these weapons

is substantially related to the achievement of an important governmental interest.

Accordingly, the Act does not violate the Second Amendment in this respect.

Further, because the SAFE Act’s requirement that ammunition sales be conducted

“face-to-face” does not unduly burden interstate commerce, it does not violate the dormant

Commerce Clause.

Edited January 1, 2014 by bubba

[Nomad]

That's just f$&ed up. The SCOTUS said guns in common use are protected under 2A.

NY judge says these guns are in common use,then that they can be banned.

[wooffer]

This judge does a good job of double-speak. It is not the states authority to govern state to state commerce. That is the feds jurisdiction. He is basing his decision on case law and not the law itself.

[wooffer]

This phrase is the most troubling?

 

"New York has presented considerable evidence that its regulation of these weapons

is substantially related to the achievement of an important governmental interest."

 

What does "governmental interest" mean? I guess they couldn't say "public safety" since you have a better chance of dying by knife than an AR.

[Doc]

Well, it sure isn't good news, but it also is not the end of the legal battle either. This would be a bad time for everyone to throw their hands up in the air and start withholding support for the next rounds of legal work. I too am a believer in not looking at this thing through rose colored glasses, but understand that this is not the end of the legal activity. And understand that we still need money to continue the fight.

 

However, this will definitely encourage Cuomo and his merry band of gun control legislators. While we are regrouping on the legal front, let's not slack off the political activism that is up ahead of us (not that far ahead either). These creeps are all slapping each other on the back over their supposed conquest and disposal of gun owners rights. I think we have to make sure that they pay the price for their sneaky underhanded methods of shredding the 2nd amendment. We need to make them wish they had never voted for that thing or we can expect more similar and worse acts to be coming at us fast and furious. Emboldened by their successes, they will be coming at us with everything they've got unless we convince them that their careers are at stake. This act is bad enough, but I am looking just a little farther down the road.

[bubba]

I certainly am not saying throw up your hands.  In fact just the opposite.  Dig in deeper and fight even harder. Just saying these are the types of battles we will have in the courts.  The way to win this is to get rid of the bums in Albany who pushed this through and get a new set who will repeal it.  Remember the 4 boxes of liberty   Soap box  Jury box, ballot box  cartridge box.   Get out there and educate your family and friends   nullify by jury and attempts to convict,  vote the bums out but do not settle for the lesser of two evils.  Keep your guns close.

[NYyotekiller]

Well, it sure isn't good news, but it also is not the end of the legal battle either. This would be a bad time for everyone to throw their hands up in the air and start withholding support for the next rounds of legal work. I too am a believer in not looking at this thing through rose colored glasses, but understand that this is not the end of the legal activity. And understand that we still need money to continue the fight.

 

However, this will definitely encourage Cuomo and his merry band of gun control legislators. While we are regrouping on the legal front, let's not slack off the political activism that is up ahead of us (not that far ahead either). These creeps are all slapping each other on the back over their supposed conquest and disposal of gun owners rights. I think we have to make sure that they pay the price for their sneaky underhanded methods of shredding the 2nd amendment. We need to make them wish they had never voted for that thing or we can expect more similar and worse acts to be coming at us fast and furious. Emboldened by their successes, they will be coming at us with everything they've got unless we convince them that their careers are at stake. This act is bad enough, but I am looking just a little farther down the road.

 

That's good stuff right there. I've never heard it described any better.

[bubba]

http://blog.timesunion.com/capitol/archives/202309/federal-judge-upholds-safe-act-with-a-few-exceptions/

 

this article tells it better

[Early]

There is a glimmer of hope in the judge's contention that the 7-round limit places law-abiding citizens at a disadvantage when encountering criminals possessing guns holding more rounds.  This argument should be expanded and pursued vigorously:  The SAFE ACT reduces the law-abiding citizen's ability to defend self and home, but does NOTHING to control/deter criminals.

[vizslas]

IT would not suprise me if this victory as it is being called is nothing more than a political ploy. I feel the seven round rule was added so it could  be given back to us. Hopeing to satiate the masses. Remember this is cuomo's doing. Just my theory.

[bubba]

exactly throw a bone and some will be happy.  Delay ammo checks and they will remain happy until after November.

[Mr VJP]

I've said it before, and this is more evidence it's true.  We have no hope of winning this fight through the courts' as the deck has been stacked with activist judges who do not support or defend the Constitution of the United States!

[wooffer]

Where did you guys hear that ammo checks are being postponed? I have not read anything about that. In fact some online ammo dealers have said they are stopping NY ammo sales.