Down goes the 7 round rule.

[illy 1]

Not a great ruling, but at least one good thing:

 

New York’s new gun control law is constitutional and should remain largely in effect, a federal judge in Buffalo ruled today.

Chief U.S. District Judge William M. Skretny said the law, a response to the Sandy Hook shootings that killed 20 children and six adults, is not a violation of the Second Amendment.

The one exception Skretny found was the law’s seven-round limit, which he called “tenuous, strained and unsupported.”

 

“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,” the judge said in his ruling.

Known as the SAFE Act, the law expands New York’s assault weapons ban to include semi-automatic weapons with characteristics of assault weapons.

It also prohibits ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds and generally prohibits users from loading more than seven rounds in those 10-round magazines.

The federal court challenge to the law cast a national spotlight on Buffalo, in part because legal scholars believe the case could end up before the U.S. Supreme Court.

If so, the civil suit could be one in which the court finally decides whether the Second Amendment allows government to regulate ammunition clips and assault weapons.

The case, filed by the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, has attracted the attention of virtually every major gun control and gun rights organization in the country.

Many of those groups have filed amicus curiae, or friend of the court, briefs detailing why they think the SAFE Act violates or adheres to the Constitution.

Gun rights advocates believe the law is unconstitutional and often point to a 2008 Supreme Court decision that, for the first time, supported the notion that individuals, not just militias, have the right to own guns.

In that case, District of Columbia v. Heller, the Court ruled that a Washington, D.C. ban on handguns was unconstitutional because it restricted an individual’s Second Amendment right to self-defense, especially in the home.

Gun control advocates are just as quick to point to Heller because the Court ruled that the Second Amendment right to own guns, like most rights, is not without restrictions.

Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the opinion, said the Constitution does not give people the right to keep and carry any type of gun whatsoever.

 

 

http://www.buffalonews.com/city-region/state/federal-judge-upholds-new-yorks-ban-on-assault-weapons-rejects-7-round-magazine-limit-20131231

 

 

So the unSAFE Act stands for now, but that super stupid 7 round rule is out.

[DSD1026 48]

im failing to read where it gets rid of the 7 round ruling..  shows that the judge says its not really supported, but it doesnt show that they are getting rid of it..  or did i miss it somewhere in that article?

[illy 1]

States the Court upheld/found the Act contsitutional, except for the 7 round provision.

Meaning it's overturned/unconstitutional.

 

EDIT:

 

More specifically, the case was brought by gun owners/2A groups, challenging the constitutionality of the SAFE Act as a whole.

This judge ruled that all of it, except for the 7 round nonsense, is constitutional.

 

Like I said, it's a bad ruling, but at least rids NYers of that super stupid rule.

It's likely going to be appealed by both sides and SCOTUS will refuse to hear it, so this will be the law in NY for a while at least.

[DSD1026 48]

ahh, ok..  i guess since it didn't specifically say "the 7 round limit was overturned", i misread the statement...

[Respect2A 0]

Once again a semi auto rifle is NOT an assault weapon. Wtf.

[Smokin .50 1,907]

I was gettin' worried there....1938 M-1 Garand en-bloc Clips work better with the FULL 8 rounds!

[mipafox 438]

Obama has probably appointed 100 judges worse than this idiot in the last 30 days. With hundreds more to go under the Nuclear Option. Sky is the limit.

[Parker 213]

Gun owners in NY have a fight on their hands. According to Tom King of the NYSRPA, they've spent $426,000 so far on legal expenses. I pulled this off the NY Highpower forum page. The next issue pending is ammunition NICS starting the 15th of the new year:

 

NO ORAL SAFE ACT ARGUMENTS

(Read message from NYSRPA and judge below)

 There won’t be any oral arguments in the legal challenge to the New York State SAFE Act provisions being made by the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association. 

 

Any decision is also likely to be instantly appealed and legal proceedings can go on for years, leaving New York State's citizenry subject to arrest, misdemeanors, felonies and fines at any time for continuing to participate in their previously legal sports with previously legal equipment while being barred from buying any new needed sports equipment or easily selling their current equipment. 

 

In a decision nixing the oral arguments filed on Dec. 23rd by U.S. District Court Justice  William M. Skretny, he wrote, “…given the breadth and thoroughness of the briefing by the parties and amici already submitted to this Court, it is prepared to resolve the pending motions without a hearing.” 

 

The judge said he was also aware of the possible effects both on the government and the public, and intended to issue a decision prior to the deadline dates. These dates begin on January 15^th.

 

Already, at least one major on-line ammunition shipper, Midway Arms, has advised its customers that it is cancelling all orders to New York State beginning Dec. 31^st.

 

The company is also telling customers its legal team believes it cannot ship any ammunition or reloading parts -- including bullets, gun powder, brass cases and plastic wads or shells for shotguns—to a local New York State store for pickup by its own customers where they would then undergo the required SAFE Act background checks. 

 

It is unclear if Midway will ship if it is the local stores that make the actual order, because the Midway legal team says the SAFE Act requires a “face to face” sale.

 (This is the actual language for those who like legalese:

 S  50. The penal law is amended by adding a new section 400.03 to read

   40  as follows:

   41  S 400.03 SELLERS OF AMMUNITION. ….

7. NO COMMERCIAL TRANSFER OF AMMUNITION  SHALL  TAKE  PLACE  UNLESS  A

   15  LICENSED  DEALER  IN FIREARMS OR REGISTERED SELLER OF AMMUNITION ACTS AS

   16  AN INTERMEDIARY BETWEEN THE TRANSFEROR AND THE  ULTIMATE  TRANSFEREE  OF

   17  THE  AMMUNITION FOR THE PURPOSES OF CONTACTING THE STATEWIDE LICENSE AND

   18  RECORD DATABASE PURSUANT TO THIS  SECTION.  SUCH  TRANSFER  BETWEEN  THE

   19  DEALER OR SELLER, AND TRANSFEREE MUST OCCUR IN PERSON 

 

 The NY State Police, which is developing the background check plan, has already advised that they cannot implement it in time for the Jan. 15^th deadline required under the Act for ammunition sales.

 

Some websites are also reporting that the previously expected $10 per background check fee could rise to $20. That would be per purchase -- so a 20-round box of .22 ammo would incur the additional fee, the same as 1,000 rounds.    

 

Additionally, beginning Jan. 15^th "high-capacity" pistol or rifle magazines that have not been disposed of or permanently blocked to hold only ten rounds or less become illegal.

 

If found with high capacity magazines in their home, if the person did not know it was illegal to possess, they will have 30-days to dispose of it. (After you finish this article you will undergo instant hypnosis and not recall reading anything about any laws or know anything about magazines other than from old copies of Precision Shooting.)

 

After that 30-day "grace period" a person with a high capacity magazine will be subject to a violation and $200 fine for a first offense if the magazines are found in their home.

 

BUT if found with a large capacity magazine outside the home, the person could be charged with a misdemeanor and up to six months in jail for a first offense or up to a year in jail for a second offense. It is unclear if two HCMs is cause for a year in jail.

 

Sportsmen and target shooters are still seething over the new rules, and directing their anger towards defeating various elected officials and Gov. Cuomo.

 

The reduced capacity is also sore subject for armed guards who have not been exempted from the legislation and are loathe to have fewer rounds in their magazines when they are guarding millions of dollars and could become easy targets for armed robberies by better armed perps.

[Genewarper111 18]

The most interesting part of the ruling to me - the most threatening precedent I mean - is that he specifically ruled that, while the Supreme Court had previously determined that firearms in common use were protected, and he accepted that the banned firearms are in common use and only very rarely used in crimes, nonetheless lower bodies could take advantage of the Heller clause on "reasonable restriction" to essentially ignore the "common use" clause at will. Effectively therefore, he has neutered Heller.

 

G

[raz-0 1,260]

The most interesting part of the ruling to me - the most threatening precedent I mean - is that he specifically ruled that, while the Supreme Court had previously determined that firearms in common use were protected, and he accepted that the banned firearms are in common use and only very rarely used in crimes, nonetheless lower bodies could take advantage of the Heller clause on "reasonable restriction" to essentially ignore the "common use" clause at will. Effectively therefore, he has neutered Heller.

 

G

That is interesting. Supreme courts usually look upon such acts and frown menacingly before handing you back your now detached nut sack.

[mipafox 438]

The most interesting part of the ruling to me - the most threatening precedent I mean - is that he specifically ruled that, while the Supreme Court had previously determined that firearms in common use were protected, and he accepted that the banned firearms are in common use and only very rarely used in crimes, nonetheless lower bodies could take advantage of the Heller clause on "reasonable restriction" to essentially ignore the "common use" clause at will. Effectively therefore, he has neutered Heller.

 

G

How was I able to predict that immediately upon release of the ruling? People talking about what a victory it was, and I reminded them the only thing people learned from Heller was the guidance of "not every gun" "not every place" "we can regulate" we can restrict" and "concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld." Day 1 I knew it. And it's all we've heard ever since. They gave every gun grabber out there cover to do whatever they want except ban all handguns are far as they are concerned.

[n4p226r 105]

i guess that means i can bring a 10/22 upstate if i go now.  

[n4p226r 105]

How was I able to predict that immediately upon release of the ruling? People talking about what a victory it was, and I reminded them the only thing people learned from Heller was the guidance of "not every gun" "not every place" "we can regulate" we can restrict" and "concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld." Day 1 I knew it. And it's all we've heard ever since. They gave every gun grabber out there cover to do whatever they want except ban all handguns are far as they are concerned.

 

i've actually read a few supreme court rulings on guns.  from what i've gathered, it seems to me that some in the supreme court might think the only guns you cant ban are the m16/m4 and m9.  everything else isnt in "common use" of the military and designed for single person use.  some say we can interperate that as common use by civilians today but thats not what i understood the term to mean unless it was used elsewhere.  too bad i cant remember what rulings led me to that decision.