SJG 253 Posted October 20, 2015 http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/83438cdd-a0d4-45e6-9e82-e32e9e8efcae/3/doc/14-36_14-319_opn.pdf Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
voyager9 3,434 Posted October 20, 2015 We hold that the core provisions of the New York and 21 Connecticut laws prohibiting possession of semiautomatic assault 22 weapons and large‐capacity magazines do not violate the Second 23 Amendment, and that the challenged individual provisions are not 24 void for vagueness. The particular provision of New York’s law 25 regulating load limits, however, does not survive the requisite 26 scrutiny. One further specific provision—Connecticut’s prohibition 27 on the non‐semiautomatic Remington 7615—unconstitutionally 28 infringes upon the Second Amendment right. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
intercooler 41 Posted October 20, 2015 so basically they ruled that semi auto's are not protected... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
siderman 1,138 Posted October 20, 2015 and here I thought an assault weapon was select fire, silly me. Nice of Conn to officially clarify that for us. So what is an assault weapon? whatever Conn says it is. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
voyager9 3,434 Posted October 20, 2015 and here I thought an assault weapon was select fire, silly me. Nice of Conn to officially clarify that for us. So what is an assault weapon? whatever Conn says it is. Assault Weapon is a term created by the media and liberal politicians. Assault Rifle is an established term that refers to a rifle with select fire. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jim Hartman 31 Posted October 21, 2015 Everyone expected this is exactly how those Democrat appointed bench legislatures would rule. Hopefully this isnt the end and it goes to the supreme court. There are allot of people in free state that dont want the supreme court to hear anymore 2 amendment cases. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
siderman 1,138 Posted October 21, 2015 Assault Weapon is a term created by the media and liberal politicians. Assault Rifle is an established term that refers to a rifle with select fire. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk and this ruling is just another official legitimizing of the term into the common vernacular. cant wait to see how the definition broadens in the coming years. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Old Glock guy 1,127 Posted October 21, 2015 I'm sorry to sound negative, but it's stuff like this that makes me feel that we are all doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Fred2 367 Posted October 21, 2015 I'm sorry to sound negative, but it's stuff like this that makes me feel that we are all doomed. You have to talk to people that live in America, esp one like Florida, AKA the Gunshine State. It will help to restore your faith. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bhunted 887 Posted October 21, 2015 "It's not a venacular, it's a Derby...." Nyuk nyuk... and this ruling is just another official legitimizing of the term into the common vernacular. cant wait to see how the definition broadens in the coming years. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SJG 253 Posted October 21, 2015 WANG: Thomas King is president of the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, one of the groups that brought the original lawsuits. Technically, the new ruling means they lost the argument at the circuit court. But King says strategically, it's actually a victory. KING: Yeah, it is. And it's also the final step in allowing us to take our case to the Supreme Court. So yeah, we're very happy about it. WANG: King says he and his fellow plaintiffs plan to appeal the ruling. And if they do, Adam Winkler, a constitutional law professor at UCLA, says they'll have company. ADAM WINKLER: The Supreme Court is already mulling a case dealing with bans on assault weapons. They've shown no inclination to take it yet. This case might give the court additional encouragement to do so. WANG: Winkler says it's just a matter of time before the High Court clarifies what exactly the Second Amendment does require. In the meantime, though, the bans on certain assault-style semiautomatic weapons and large capacity magazines still stand in New York and Connecticut. My two cents: The more mass shootings there are, the less likely that the Court is going to tackle this issue, but I could be wrong Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tattooo 220 Posted October 21, 2015 So they are happy about it.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brucin 923 Posted October 21, 2015 So they are happy about it.... It's NY you take what you can get. Wait till NJ safe act is implemented. Sweeny will have to beat out NY so who knows what kind of BS they'll ram down our throats. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jackandjill 683 Posted October 21, 2015 It's NY you take what you can get. Wait till NJ safe act is implemented. Sweeny will have to beat out NY so who knows what kind of BS they'll ram down our throats.6.5 clip limit ? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
WP22 1,558 Posted October 22, 2015 WANG: Thomas King is president of the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, one of the groups that brought the original lawsuits. Technically, the new ruling means they lost the argument at the circuit court. But King says strategically, it's actually a victory. KING: Yeah, it is. And it's also the final step in allowing us to take our case to the Supreme Court. So yeah, we're very happy about it. WANG: King says he and his fellow plaintiffs plan to appeal the ruling. And if they do, Adam Winkler, a constitutional law professor at UCLA, says they'll have company. ADAM WINKLER: The Supreme Court is already mulling a case dealing with bans on assault weapons. They've shown no inclination to take it yet. This case might give the court additional encouragement to do so. WANG: Winkler says it's just a matter of time before the High Court clarifies what exactly the Second Amendment does require. In the meantime, though, the bans on certain assault-style semiautomatic weapons and large capacity magazines still stand in New York and Connecticut. My two cents: The more mass shootings there are, the less likely that the Court is going to tackle this issue, but I could be wrong Talk about reaching for the silver lining.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rob0115 1,105 Posted October 22, 2015 Sweeney will enact a 3-4 round limit so your revolvers become illegal. However, he'll be packing, CCW, a Glock 19 with 15 rounds in case his life is threatened. After all, he's more important than the rest of NJ residents. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tattooo 220 Posted October 22, 2015 Sweeney will enact a 3-4 round limit so your revolvers become illegal. However, he'll be packing, CCW, a Glock 19 with 15 rounds in case his life is threatened. After all, he's more important than the rest of NJ residents.I know that sickens me to my core every time I think of it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
siderman 1,138 Posted October 22, 2015 I'm sorry to sound negative, but it's stuff like this that makes me feel that we are all doomed. Hey cheer up! They did say a 10 rd mag can actually have 10 rds! They really slapped Cuomo hard with that one! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tattooo 220 Posted October 22, 2015 Hey cheer up! They did say a 10 rd mag can actually have 10 rds! They really slapped Cuomo hard with that one!Lol.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Newtonian 453 Posted October 22, 2015 The Supremes will not hear the case. As for being doomed, that's almost certainly true. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Old Glock guy 1,127 Posted October 22, 2015 The Supremes will not hear the case. As for being doomed, that's almost certainly true. I hate when I have to console myself by thinking that at least I probably won't be around long enough to see it. Although I suspect things are going to get really ugly here in NJ in a couple of years when we get a Democratic governor who goes all out to beat the NY SAFE act. I cringe when they talk about "model legislation." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
n4p226r 105 Posted October 22, 2015 what is interesting in the 7round "load limit" is that they word it in a way that since 10 round magazines are still legal AND readily accessible, the loading limit is unconstitutional. I wonder what that would mean if companies decided to stop selling 10 round magazines all together. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Newtonian 453 Posted October 22, 2015 I hate when I have to console myself by thinking that at least I probably won't be around long enough to see it. Although I suspect things are going to get really ugly here in NJ in a couple of years when we get a Democratic governor who goes all out to beat the NY SAFE act. I cringe when they talk about "model legislation." The situation for freedom-loving Americans has become so dire so quickly. Always a pessimist, I used to think that reaching bottom would take decades, that it was possible to watch things unravel for a while and when things heated up perhaps intervene. The current situation across the Atlantic smashes that idea to bits. It's already too late for Eurabia. Europeans have watched their basic rights disappear, one by one. Freedom of speech these days in Germany and France is limited to "approved" statements that don't offend anyone. We will have such laws on the books in the USA within a decade, five years if as expected the Presidentess-in-Waiting is crowned in January 2017. Both conservative and liberal Justices have eroded our fourth and fifth amendment rights. Our march towards a politically correct police state will continue unabated. And gun rights, the topic of these forums, will eventually disappear as well. It's been a great 25 years for gun owners in most of the country but changing demographics and the stupidification of our youth spell huge trouble. Pendulums do what pendulums do: They swing. I read something somewhere that Hispanics and Asians overwhelmingly favor gun control. Guess which are the fastest-growing minorities in the US? Throw in the air-headed millenials and a few hundred thousand "migrant" Somalis and Syrians and before long Arizona becomes Texas, Texas becomes Colorado, Colorado becomes Connecticut, Connecticut becomes New Jersey, and New Jersey becomes NY City. It will not happen over years, it will happen overnight. Which is a very long way of saying that you're partly right. Five years ago I was happy that I would not be around to see the worst. Now I'm not so sure. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChrisJM981 924 Posted October 22, 2015 I forsee a mixture of Totalitarianism and Socialism taking root in the near future; for the sake of the children. By 2040 I expect a tipping point, and a lot of Americans to be labeled "domestic terrorists". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Silence Dogood 468 Posted October 24, 2015 I forsee a mixture of Totalitarianism and Socialism taking root in the near future; for the sake of the children. By 2040 I expect a tipping point, and a lot of Americans to be labeled "domestic terrorists". Given what's happening on college campuses ("free speech zones" and intolerance, anti-Christian and anti-police rhetoric) it will be the "children" who instigate it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
magnawing 5 Posted October 25, 2015 With the current administration in Austin, I think before you see Texas fall to the liberal dictatorship, you'll see us revert back to being the Republic of Texas. This is my signature. There are many like it but this one is mine. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dan 177 Posted October 26, 2015 The crux of the problem with these cases are that they are being heard by circuit courts smack dab in the middle of renegade states with whome do not recognize the 2nd Amendment. In fact it is clear that the court ruling has thrown out the baby with the bath water when it comes to applying the proper level of scrutiny that a civil right demands. The "public safety" argument was weighed heavily in McDonald and was rejected under the premise that many of our rights enumerated in the bill of rights have "contriversial public safety implications" (Scalia). That does not mean that states can simply discount them and brush them off. In particular, the anti's use the public safety argument for banning semi auto sporting rifles, when they are used in ~.05% of all gun related murders. I guess they already lost the fight on handguns (Heller) which are invovled in something like 85% of gun related murders so they have to go after something. Another example... My argument is our wonderful news media outlets which deifies people who commit attrocities, particularly when the tool used was a firearm. This application of free speech is responsible for these recent heinous actions. Many times the killers mention in their notes that their goal is to be forever burned into pop culture, of course facilitated by media. Guess what, don't give that to them. Ban reporting on murderers of any kind. It won't be worth it for them and the nut jobs won't do it. Alas we can't because of that pesky 1st amendment.... The other issue is that free states can't file a case to challenge once and for all what are the boundaries of what are considered protected arms under the 2A and have them tried in additional Court of Appeals circuits for additional rulings which most likely would be contradictory to the fascist circuit rulings. Instead , cases filed in civil rights repressed states have to follow a trail of destruction up to the Supreme court, which for the best hope is apathetic over what kinds of guns the 2A protects.... at least they'd have an open mind. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mipafox 438 Posted October 26, 2015 Everyone expected this is exactly how those Democrat appointed bench legislatures would rule. Hopefully this isnt the end and it goes to the supreme court. There are allot of people in free state that dont want the supreme court to hear anymore 2 amendment cases. Bingo. Over 20 judges in that circuit. Two of the three in this ruling were Obama appointees. You guys remember that, right? Hundreds of judges packed into district and appeals courts, and later using the budgetary process of the Senate (even though the Senate has never passed a budget in the Obama age). Well, expect most federal court rulings to go this way for the next 30 years or so. And that's assuming it doesn't get any worse from here. If you guys are counting on the federal government to be your savior, sign up for an Obama phone. They are gone. For good. The only hope for our nation is that the States stand up. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Alex V 99 Posted October 26, 2015 Its like boiling a frog slowly. We are to busy binging on Netflix and Oreos to take use the Second Amendment in the way it was meant to me used. There will never be another Lexington and Concord Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bzer1 15 Posted October 26, 2015 The pendulum swings both ways, and when it swings back, it's usually with frightening velocity. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites