A federal judge upheld most of New York’s new gun control law on Tuesday, rejecting arguments that its bans on large-capacity magazines and the sale of some semi-automatic rifles violate Second Amendment rights.
Judge William Skretny in Buffalo concluded those provisions are constitutional because they’re related to achieving an “important governmental interest” in public safety. Those two features make guns more lethal, he wrote, citing testimony submitted in the case.
The law “applies only to a subset of firearms with characteristics New York state has determined to be particularly dangerous and unnecessary for self-defense,” Skretny wrote. “It does not totally disarm New York’s citizens, and it does not meaningfully jeopardize their right to self-defense.”
Skretny upheld the ban on magazines that hold more than 10 bullets, but he struck down a restriction on gun owners loading more than seven bullets in still legal 10-round magazines. He said that seven appears to be “an arbitrary number.”
It is bemusing that one would consider the aesthetic properties of otherwise functionally identical firearms to be in any way contributory to the inherent lethality of said weapon. Does a QZB 95 become any less lethal in the absence of the vertical hand grip or flash-hider? I would beg to differ. Can one justify the arming of potential terrorists and anti-State dissidents with lethal small arms based on the view of the native courts that such weapons are a "tamer" cousin of an equally deadly military arm? Certainly not.ReplyDelete
Each gun law that is passed that focuses on inane features, as opposed to the goal of civilian disarmament is a victory for all gun runners and the subversive anti-Government radicals who support them.
So seven is an arbitrary number, but ten is not? And this judge isn't aware that guns in common use is a test that the Supreme Court will be using? But we shouldn't be surprised that a judge in New York would rule this way. Higher courts to come, though.ReplyDelete
I doubt this will be heard by a higher court. What would be the point? It was a good ruling. Interesting way of picking up on one word the judge used which actually supported your position.Delete
It's not arbitrary when we are talking about balancing the needs of decent American citizens against the possibility of abuse of the right to bear arms. Politicians in Texas claim that they have the right to hunt pigs with automatic weapons. What use would an ordinary citizen have for a high-capacity magazine?
Consider the Aurora cinema mass killing. He killed 12 people with a 100-round drum. I guess he would have maxed out at ten people even if every round hit, had he been limited to a ten-round magazine. Limiting death is hardly arbitrary.
It is my pleasure to announce that I agree with you, Greg. I thought that remark about 7 being arbitrary was pretty stupid. I do however think a limit is important.Delete
This certainly will be appealed. But your side should support hundred-round magazines. The one in Aurora jammed. That's because they don't work well.Delete
But I've talked many times here about what use an ordinary citizen would have for a standard capacity magazine. The point in this article is that ten is just as arbitrary as seven, while New York's law shows what gun control freaks will do, given the chance--next year, what's to stop the limit being three?
Nothing, it's not protected by the Constitution. If you are so good, one is all you need.Delete
It's not a matter of being a good shot so much as the fact that handgun rounds are inherently weak.Delete
Point is again, the Constitution does not protect accessories.Delete
Restrictions on accessories is not infringing on the 2nd amend. right.ReplyDelete
Then let's restrict your usage of a modem or a keyboard, since those are mere accessories of your First Amendment rights.Delete
See how fucked up you are. I do not have a right to a PC.Delete
You do not have a right to gun accessories.
In my opinion, there no individual right even to being armed. But when they stretch the bullshit to apply to magazine capacity, it's just silly.Delete
Anonymous, if you can afford a computer, you have the right to own and use it. Even though you make a fool of yourself when you do.Delete
Mikeb, your key point there is that you deny the right to own a gun. We knew that already, and that is the reason that we must fight everything you propose.
Please show me where it says in the constitution, that I have a right to a computer?Delete
Check the archives on this site. The one who has made a lying criminal cowardly fool of himself, is you, and proven over and over again.
Thanks for proving it again by insisting the constitution gives me a right to a computer.
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
Anonymous, the Constitution does not give us rights, nor is it a comprehensive list of every right.Delete
Of course you cannot answer the question, lying criminal coward.Delete
Without the 2nd amd. you would not have a right to guns.
Americans had to amend the Constitution, just to have a legal drink of alcohol.
Do you always spout silly shit?
The Contstitution doesn't grant rights. It protects some rights that were seen as in need of particular support. Prohibition was a violation that we had to repeal.Delete
Lying coward, it proves you wrong. The Constitution does give, or take away rights, not GOD as you keep repeating.Delete
I don't recall ever saying that God gives rights.Delete
I have no doubt you don't remember.Delete
You deny saying a lot of things that are documented by your own words.
The law “applies only to a subset of firearms with characteristics New York state has determined to be particularly dangerous and unnecessary for self-defense,” Skretny wrote.ReplyDelete
Oh, so it was the State of New York that determined these characteristics to be dangerous. Wasn’t it the job of the judge to determine this? The question wasn’t: is it ok to ban particularly ‘dangerous’ guns? The challenge to the law is: are these guns particularly ‘dangerous’? If so, why? If a pistol grip makes a gun particularly ‘dangerous’ why do we allow pistol grips on pistols? If a judge were to answer these questions honestly, these “assault weapon” bans would fall on the same grounds of being arbitrary. Most judges are wimps who prefer to not rock the boat. They’re afraid to overturn something longstanding and enacted in various places. But the seven round limit was new and in NY only, so that could go.
You're comparing the forward pistol grip on an assault rifle, which is used to steady the weapon so it can be fired rapidly and kill as many people as possible, to the pistol grip on a handgun? And you think the judge should get real honest when considering this? Hahahahaha. Good one.Delete
The forward grip is just a means of aiding in shooting accurately. Some rifles have bipods. Some people use shooting sticks. None of this is about spraying lead.Delete
First of all, it's not just a forward pistol grip that gets a gun banned. It's the rear trigger hand grip too, and it's far more common. Don't tell me your ok with AR-15s so long as they don't have a forward verticle grip. A pistol is ok uner these laws but a carbine version of the exact same gun us not- the only difference being an extended barrel and shoulder stock. Arbitrary.Delete
Second, with all your blustering about dropped guns and their bumbling fool owners who should be stripped of their rights, here you are trying to ban guns for being easier to control. What the H, Mike? How is that being an advocate for gun safety?
Also Mike, the main point of my first post is that the judge did not parrot the Brady Campaign's line about pistol grips, like you just did. He didn't address whether or not these features are dangerous. Instead his descision stated that the State determines what is dangerous, and the courts won't question it. They can ban whatever they want so long as they use the buzz phrase "particularly dangerous". Does that seem right to you? Do you want judges making decisions like that when a liberal cause is on the line?Delete
Ah, but TS, to a leftist, the only rights are the ones they acknowledge.Delete
Since it is the position of you gun loons, that dropped guns do not go off, it's appropriate that Mike shows, that's a lie.Delete
"Instead his descision stated that the State determines what is dangerous, and the courts won't question it."Delete
Isn't questioning the State's Laws exactly what this judge did? He found them to be constitutional, except for the 7-round limitation.
He said it is constitutional to ban 'particularly dangerous' guns. He didn't address whether these guns qualify as 'particularly dangerous'.Delete
Regarding dropped guns, Mike makes a big point to tell us how dangerous it is, but then advocates banning features on guns that he says "steadys" the weapon. How effed up is that?
How fucked up are people like you, SS, and Greg to insist that dropped guns do not go off, yet, we read story after story, that they do. It's clear you guys lie to make your false points.Delete
Well then, I suppose you wouldn't want to ban a feature for making a gun too steady, right?Delete
Just pointing out lying cowardly scum, like you.Delete
Anonymous, we didn't said that no gun ever goes off when dropped. Modern designs are made not to do that, barring mechanical defect. But there are many older models that can go off under those circumstances.Delete
Can you answer the question? Should we ban features that make guns easier to hold?Delete
Bullshit, you said guns were made not to go off when dropped, then gave some shit stats to prove it. Obviously a lie, since we read about it all the time.Delete
Not up to me what to ban, I simply say, it's not protected by the 2nd amendment, and accessories are not protected by the Constitution.
What's the next lie you cowards want to spread?
TS, it's not that some of these features make the gun easier to handle, it's that they make it easier to kill people with. That's the point of the features argument, which I'm not a big defender of, but I'm honest enough to say what it is. You keep twisting it to sound like something else.Delete
What is it about these grips that they only work better when the shooter has intent to murder where it wouldn't apply to self-defense, target shooting, hunting, or moving a gun from one place to another?Delete
Banning features is just a bass ackward way of banning as many guns as the control freaks think they can get away with.Delete
What bullshit from the site lying criminal coward. Banning a mega clip, is not banning a gun.Delete
I think the argument is that you don't need a forward pistol grip on your semi-automatic rifle to do target shooting and hunting and home defense. So, although you'd be denied something you like, the ability of bad guys to do their killing would be diminished. And before you say it, the bad guys won't be able to get them as readily as they do now if they were banned since they ALL start out the legal property of you lawful gun owners who don't seem to be able to secure them properly and hang on to them.Delete
But why does it work better for the bad guys and not for the good guys? And it's not just the forward grip, it's the rear grip that you are trying to ban too. None of those high profile AR-15 shooting even had a forward vertical grip. And if it makes such a huge difference as a death machine, what's to stop the bad guys from screwing a dowel rod to the forearm? Your whole premise is that being able to wrap your fingers around the grip makes for a tighter hold, right? Doesn't that make it easier to not drop it all situations?Delete