NYSRPA v. Cuomo

[SilverBulletZ06]

Anyone listening to that oral argument thinking that we will win needs their ears checked. Those judges allowed a lot of supposition (and about 8 minutes extra argument time) by NY and CT state representatives while requiring specific numbers and filings by us.

Our side skipped a MAJOR point: the judge brought up the use of firearms with 10+ magazines and "assault weapons" in mass shootings, the IMMEDIATE reply to that should have been "a greater correlation exists between so called gun free zones and mass shootings".

 

[Maestro Pistolero]

Anyone listening to that oral argument thinking that we will win needs their ears checked. Those judges allowed a lot of supposition (and about 8 minutes extra argument time) by NY and CT state representatives while requiring specific numbers and filings by us.

Our side skipped a MAJOR point: the judge brought up the use of firearms with 10+ magazines and "assault weapons" in mass shootings, the IMMEDIATE reply to that should have been "a greater correlation exists between so called gun free zones and mass shootings".

That would have been an excellent point.

Another crucial point, which I see as the elephant in the living room, is that ALL firearms aren't just dangerous, they're lethal. The founders knew this very well and intended for lawful citizens to have free access to the most lethal weapons known to man.

An AR15 fires a projectile that, at best, is marginally as lethal . . . though certainly more accurate . . . than the .70 caliber balls fired by the muskets of the American Revolution.

As to the point of magazine capacity: There was, at the time of founding, an equanimity between adversaries created by the technological limitations of the period. In other words, everyone had to load their muskets one load at a time.

Since the entire POINT of the Second Amendment is to equalize the playing field between those who would use weapons for nefarious purposes and those who would oppose them, then an artificially imposed magazine capacity can ONLY benefit those who would ignore such a law, and can ONLY harm those who would obey it.

Such laws, FAR beyond the mere infringement that the amendment explicitly prohibits, are ANTITHETICAL to very intent and purpose of the amendment.

 

[NY Marksman]

Anyone listening to that oral argument thinking that we will win needs their ears checked. Those judges allowed a lot of supposition (and about 8 minutes extra argument time) by NY and CT state representatives while requiring specific numbers and filings by us.

i never meant t imply that they would come out on our side on the majority of the issues, but they at the very least it seems unlikely that they will retain the 7 round limit on magazines. Most judges in CA2 seem to come into these cases with their mind made up long before the first brief is filed. we will wait for SCOTUS to hopefully take this one up.

 

[SilverBulletZ06]

i never meant t imply that they would come out on our side on the majority of the issues, but they at the very least it seems unlikely that they will retain the 7 round limit on magazines. Most judges in CA2 seem to come into these cases with their mind made up long before the first brief is filed. we will wait for SCOTUS to hopefully take this one up.

SCOTUS won't take it.

Lets face it, they MAY take Peruta because California is asking for review. They aren't going to take an AWB case. If they are OK with allowing the CA2 to say that attacks outside the home are imaginary in Kachalsky I don't see them having a problem with the CA2 saying that the most used firearm in America is unusual or that in Kachalsky the home and ownership was covered under Heller, but Heller didn't mean rifles.

 

[rockstarr]

SCOTUS won't take it.

Lets face it, they MAY take Peruta because California is asking for review. They aren't going to take an AWB case. If they are OK with allowing the CA2 to say that attacks outside the home are imaginary in Kachalsky I don't see them having a problem with the CA2 saying that the most used firearm in America is unusual or that in Kachalsky the home and ownership was covered under Heller, but Heller didn't mean rifles.

I have to agree here

 

[NY Marksman]

SCOTUS won't take it.

Lets face it, they MAY take Peruta because California is asking for review. They aren't going to take an AWB case. If they are OK with allowing the CA2 to say that attacks outside the home are imaginary in Kachalsky I don't see them having a problem with the CA2 saying that the most used firearm in America is unusual or that in Kachalsky the home and ownership was covered under Heller, but Heller didn't mean rifles.

well seeing as the ban in this case covers handguns in the home, something the other cases have not yet addressed, the field here is different. this case covers every handgun if only because the capacity is being limited to a capacity of 7 despite the fact that there is no manufacture of magazines of that capacity. and the mere possession of rifles and shotguns (before feature limits) in the home hasn't been to SCOTUS yet that I am aware of. so they may also be willing to look at these. it has been my experience that the courts like to move slowly. the other cases may have been too fast or out of the order that they wanted to go in.

 

[press1280]

SCOTUS won't take it.

Lets face it, they MAY take Peruta because California is asking for review. They aren't going to take an AWB case. If they are OK with allowing the CA2 to say that attacks outside the home are imaginary in Kachalsky I don't see them having a problem with the CA2 saying that the most used firearm in America is unusual or that in Kachalsky the home and ownership was covered under Heller, but Heller didn't mean rifles.

Impossible to tell what SCOTUS is looking for to take a 2A case. Heller and McDonald were the result of circuit splits, 1 was brought by individuals(McDonald) and 1 by a government (Heller).

 

[NY Marksman]

Impossible to tell what SCOTUS is looking for to take a 2A case. Heller and McDonald were the result of circuit splits, 1 was brought by individuals(McDonald) and 1 by a government (Heller).

i think with a 5th judge potentially on the fence they may be looking for something that goes so far beyond the pale that they nearly have to admit it's an infringement and work up from there. like only being able to load 7 rounds into a legal 10round magazine

 

[pcfixer]

Nullification is the Right Remedy.
Thomas Jefferson.

http://tracking.tenthamendmentcenter.com/

 

[Kharn]

Loss: Opinion

Whoops, wrong NYSRPA v Cuomo...

 

[dblas]

Ruling is out from the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals;

http://law-policy.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/NYSRAP-vs-Cuomo-OPINION-10192015.pdf

 

[DC-W]

Horseshit.

Pure horseshit.

I'll read the rest when I'm not on a phone and need my blood pressure increased.

 

[OrbitalEllipses]

I wouldn't call this a win.

We hold that the core provisions of the New York and, Connecticut laws prohibiting possession of semiautomatic assault weapons and large‐capacity magazines do not violate the Second Amendment, and that the challenged individual provisions are not void for vagueness. The particular provision of New York’s law regulating load limits, however, does not survive the requisite scrutiny. One further specific provision—Connecticut’s prohibition on the non‐semiautomatic Remington 7615—unconstitutionally infringes upon the Second Amendment right. Accordingly, we AFFIRM in part the judgment of the District Court for the District of Connecticut insofar as it upheld the prohibition of semiautomatic assault weapons and large‐capacity magazines, and REVERSE in part its holding with respect to the Remington 7615. With respect to the judgment of the District Court for the Western District of New York, we REVERSE in part certain vagueness holdings, and we otherwise AFFIRM that judgment insofar as it upheld the prohibition of semiautomatic assault weapons and large‐capacity magazines and invalidated the load limit.

 

[DC-W]

Perhaps this is why we've waited so long for a 4th circuit ruling?

 

[whistlersmother]

You can buy 10rd mags, thus ban on > 10 is constitutional.
You can buy "non-military" feature AR15, thus ban on "military" feature AR15 is constitutional.

Kinda like saying "You can buy a bicycle with peddles, but not also with a light".

Does not speak well for the outcome of Kolbe.

 

[DC-W]

National news is catching this now:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/us-appeals-court-upholds-gun-laws-newtown-massacre-34573590

 

[eruby]

2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals:

Jeremiah 5:21

Hear now this, O foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not

 

[pwoolford]

I definitely struggle with legalese but did they basically say since you can protect yourself with other weapons you don't really need an AR15? Like there are plenty of other churches so who really needs a Protestant one?

Either way, it felt like they started with the conclusion in mind.

 

[DC-W]

A local report from Buffalo
http://www.buffalonews.com/city-reg...but-rules-against-seven-bullet-limit-20151019

The court rejected the arguments by the plaintiffs – which included the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, the Sportsmen’s Association for Firearms Education and other groups, businesses and individual gun owners – that the law “will primarily disarm law-abiding citizens and will thus impair the very public safety objectives they were designed to achieve.’’ The court said there is a “dearth of evidence that law-abiding citizens typically use these weapons for self-defense” and that the state tailored the two key components of the law “to address these particular hazard weapons” that it said has a higher chance when used to inflict more numerous and serious wounds to more people than other weapons.

The court said there are still “numerous alternatives” for people to purchase weapons with magazines capable of holding up to 10 rounds and to use them for self-defense. “The burden imposed by the challenged legislation is real, but it is not severe,’’ the court ruled.

And this

Tom King, president of the rifle and pistol association, which is the state chapter of the National Rifle Association, said there are now five varying circuit court rulings involving gun control laws that are ripe to be combined and sent as one challenge to the U.S. Supreme Court.

“I’m happy,’’ he said of the appeals court ruling striking down the seven-round limit in 10-round magazines. “Could I be happier? Absolutely. But we’re on our way to the Supreme Court.

“The result is really pretty much what we though was going to happen. The Second Circuit is not known for being in any way a pro-gun friendly court. We’ve been saying from day one this is going to be a Supreme Court case,’’ King added.

 

[danb]

(but not hugely surprising either)