Much of the SAFE Act was upheld yesterday in a decision by a Buffalo federal court judge.
As I haven’t read an English interpretation of the decision yet, the only comment on it is this:
“Right from Day 1, I’ve been telling people that this is the first step. This is going to the Supreme Court.” – New York State Rifle and Pistol Association President Thomas King on a federal judge’s ruling that nearly all parts of New York’s strict gun laws are constitutionally sound, via The New York Times.
I always thought of the notion that you get what you pay for. This is clearly in the opposite direction of that statement. I understand that Mr. Halbrook is a 2A scholar but I am surprised there were no alarm bells when the judge said he didn’t need any oral arguments.
In my own opinion, maybe this judge did a tit of tat to throw a bone to both sides in a political sense to save his behind, why I don’t know. I also am under the opinion that he didn’t want to touch the AW Ban and perhaps knew that the SCOTUS should handel his due to it’s national implications. In his mind maybe he saw the writing on the wall with an appeal and figured the best way is to have them to the dirty work.
Of course this depends on the speed of this going to SCOTUS and the issue of two judges getting near retirement. I hope it makes it there quick enough or we are screwed and that is the very scary part of this whole situation. I am sure Cumhole is gleefully happy regarding the AWs and kicking the curb on the 10 round mag.
Not asking for oral arguments is common practice. It means nothing.
Happy fucking new year. Just fucking great. Have another drink.
WE NEED TO VOTE OUT CUOMO. IF WE DO THAT WE MAY NOT NEED THE COURTS. INSTEAD OF WAITTING GET ACTIVE TO GET HIM OUT AND HALF THE BATTLE IS OURS.
I read a lot of it. He was just not going to give it to us. He acknowledged common use but applied intermediate scrutiny and “compelling interest of the govt.” as I was afraid he would and especially afraid of that precedent from Heller2. Right there we were fucked. His decision was specious. Also what I thought would really hit home was the predominant use of handguns in the majority of “mass shootings”, especially the biggest at VT. He acknowledged that and said that legislatures have the right to address problems in stages, implying handguns are another stage. But then he acknowledges that Heller protects handguns for the core purpose of self defense. At that point SAFE does not even survive rational scrutiny. He mentioned the necessary link between the prefatory (militia) and operative clauses of 2A, but then refers to individual self defense as the core of 2A. He says that something more suitable for self defense also increases lethality, but then what is the limit of lethality? Where does that go? I mean it became a monkey trying to fuck a football. Matt Hew was correct. The fix was in. A terribly depressing start to 2014.
With Cuomo the fix is ALWAYS in.
Keep it in mind.
First, Not a bonafide lawyer by any means, but this smells. This is a decision based on pleadings not a hearing and a trial. It is a lower court order based upon Summary Judgment motions. A lawyer friend says you have is a judge hoping to curry favor with “logical analysis” which promotes him to those at the appeal level while gaining popular support for dumping what everyone knew was absurd to begin with. He wants popular support but hasn’t the balls to take on a whole legislative act as being in violation of a constitutional mandate.
MHO Bottom line, political hack judge pandering to the elephant in the room argument that 7 rounds is simply just plain and simple arbitrary and also pandering to NY’s gun law advocates.
Judge lost me in his decision on SAFE ammo clauses although, granted, NYS is unable to administer the background ammo checks.
I’m particularly baffled by the decision’s weaving in and out of scrutiny issues. I must be a dull fellow, but:
-How does the argument that putting an adjustable stock on a weapon somehow takes it out of scrutiny?.
-How can the banned gun in your home be treated with higher level to pass constitutional muster, but if it’s in your car then has lower (intermediate) level of muster? The 2A makes no such distinction I’m aware of.
IMHO this judge is trying to promote the recent 2d Circuit in NY decisions (found nowhere else) that Heller doesn’t constitutionally cover a person’s right to 2d Amendment rights notwithstanding the TYPE of gun so long as not automatic. Should be noted 2d Circuit in NY panders to the Left because appointments have to come from a Democratic Administration.
Pretty sad. ..Zero common sense & courage.
My attorney relative’s take on the language: The judge knew it would go higher up the chain, and this was a chance to allow him to state his views/ work the arguments in, earn a suck-up credit, or he tanked it badly on purpose.
He quoted Mother Jones for crying out loud.
It’s still going to take years to work through the courts, and once the system is in place, they’re not going to get rid of it. So figure it’s here to stay.
The reason he did not want oral arguments is that he knew he couldn’t defend this piece of shit decision. Roberts did this same dance on the ACA and Kennedy, et al were furious with him. I did not catch it this morning but that is funny – He quoted Mother Jones for fuck sake! There you have some real unbiased credibility!