Federal Judge rules NY SAFE ACT constitutional. (7 Round mag limit tossed).

General General Discussion
1

http://www.buffalonews.com/city-region/state/federal-judge-upholds-majority-of-safe-act-20131231

So much for Heller.

"Gun control advocates won a major victory Tuesday, but the fight over New York’s SAFE Act is far from over.

An appeal of Chief U.S. District Judge William M. Skretny’s decision upholding most of the new law is all but guaranteed.

And that appeal may come from supporters of the law, as well.

“I think there’s going to be appeals on both sides,” said Brian T. Stapleton, a lawyer for the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, one of the groups fighting the law.

Stapleton’s prediction is based on Skretny’s decision to uphold two key elements of the law, the state’s ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, and his rejection of a third component, the seven-round limit for magazines.

The judge called the seven-round limit “tenuous, strained and unsupported.”

In a decision that has been much anticipated, Skretny said most of the SAFE Act is constitutional and should remain in effect.

He also found the law, a response to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings in Connecticut that killed 20 children and six adults, is not a violation of the Second Amendment.

“The majority of the challenged provisions withstand constitutional scrutiny,” he said in his decision."

So common use has no baring!

Up next, SCOTUS? Civil War?:mad::mad:

Get a load of this:

"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.

Skretny referred to those briefs throughout his ruling.

In one instance, he mentioned a brief filed by outgoing Rochester Police Chief James M. Sheppard and his conclusion that assault weapons “are designed for one purpose – to efficiently kill numerous people.”

He also mentioned the mass shootings in Newtown, Conn., and Aurora, Colo., to suggest that New York’s ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines is part of its lawful interest in public safety."

2

What good are rights if the common good or public safety always over rule the rights? I don’t mean that as being true in that public safety is significantly impacted but long guns are so far down on the list Im amazed these assholes can uphold these shit laws on that basis. Yet swimming pools and baseball bats are a ok.

3

Fight hasn’t even started. Unless this judge is a very conservative judge who usually sides with individual rights, this shouldn’t be a surprise.

4

so 7 round limit is teneous, strained, unsupported (whatever the hell these mean in this context) but AWB and 10+ round mags arent? If 7 round limit is unconstitutional then why is AWB and 10+ round mag ban constitutional?

5

I am learning you only have the rights that you can FORCE others to respect. If you lack the money, influence, power or will to make people respect your rights they will be ignored, limited, maligned or legislated away.

6

When the world goes sideways I pray those who support this crap come to regret their choices to the extreme.

As to everything outlined in the OP… fvxk that, all of it.

Sent from my DROID X2

7

Which is clearly why police carry them. /sarcasm

-john

8

There is so much anti-gun rhetoric fail in that opinion and not enough logic. We’re screwed.

9

Liberty’s Teeth need to be sharpened every once in awhile…

10

Im surprised it stopped short of rationalizing the constitutionality of disarmament and forced confiscation.

Maybe that will be next week’s episode…

Sent from my DROID X2

11

Can someone tell me what Heller has to do with this? Didn’t SCOTUS say that restrictions can be passed, but not outright denial or bans? Or did I misunderstand?

12

My guess is that the “common use” clause in Heller is what is relevant; namely, that since “assault rifles” (as defined in NY) are in common, legal use, that they cannot be banned (as Heller said about handguns).

Additionally, the Heller opinion’s statements about restrictions pretty clearly referenced existing gun control statutes (like NFA 34 and GCA 68 – notice how the “M16” is used by Scalia as an example), and the intent was not to nullify existing law in the decision. Unfortunately, that hasn’t kept gun control advocates from warping the statement to try and justify the legality of proposed new controls.

13

This is a surprise. NOT!

Skretny is a federal judge on the United States District Court for the Western District of New York. Skretny was nominated by President George H. W. Bush on June 12, 1990, to a seat vacated by John T. Curtin. He was confirmed by the United States Senate on August 3, 1990, and received his commission on August 7, 1990.

The Gang Of Plunderers strikes again.

14

Sounds like it is bound for the SCOTUS. It cites the language of Heller and both sides are citing the Constitution. This could do for “assault weapons” what Heller did for handguns.

15

Took my toys and went home…

16

You forgot Infringed…

17

Or abortion. 2,000,000 deaths a year. The left loses all credibility for saving the children.

18

judge skretny is a domestic enemy of the republic

19

Deleted

20

The Late 70s to the end of the 90s were probably the worst time for the 2nd Amendment in history. Public opinion of guns was at an all time low. For the first time in U.S. history, from what I can tell, it was not only not fashionable to own guns, it was looked upon with suspicion at best and disdain at worst. Both the Dems and the GOP were pretty united on an anti-gun stance and most people supported outright “Mr. and Mrs. America: Turn 'em all in!” bans on handguns. The Brady campaign ran prime time specials almost every week it seemed. Reagan and Bush Sr. were about as anti-gun as Clinton and Obama. As a result, I think we’ll find that some of the most anti-gun judges were appointed by Reagan and Bush Sr.

I have faith, with reservation of course, in the current SCOTUS though.