NYSRPA v. Cuomo

[erwos]

The fact that they were even willing to concede on the 7615 (pump action that takes AR mags) is vaguely surprising. In the UK and Australia, pump guns are severely regulated.

 

[aireyc]

These judges are incompetent.

They agree the guns are in common use, but they need to determine if they are typically possessed for lawful purposes:

We must next determine whether assault weapons and large‐capacity magazines are “typically possessed by law‐abiding citizens for lawful purposes.”

They look to Heller and the handgun ban:

That evidence of disproportionate criminal use did not prevent the Supreme Court from holding that handguns merited constitutional protection.

So they conclude:

Looking solely at a weapon’s association with crime, then, is insufficient.

B.S. A weapon's association with crime is totally relevant if it's hardly used in crime at all. If criminals use handguns disproportionately, that in no way tells us if law-abiding citizens use those same guns for lawful purposes. But if the guns aren't used in crime much at all, what other purpose is there? Is this court saying that it's possible these guns aren't used in crime but that civilians own them for unlawful purposes?

 

[aireyc]

I was going to stop reading, but I went to the next section and found this doozy:

the regulated weapons are not nearly as popularly owned and used for self‐defense as the handgun, that “quintessential self‐defense weapon.” Thus these statutes implicate Second Amendment rights, but not to the same extent as the laws at issue in Heller and McDonald.

They can't be serious. So restrictions on Catholicism burden the 1A, but restrictions on Islam don't burden it to the same extent? Are they serious?

They're saying your choice in self-defense weapon is dependent on the choices of others.

 

[Brooklyn]

No they are not serious.. it called willful ignorance and its s staple of legal reasoning..

Ignore it.wait for the real court..and prep for the con con..only the threat of if a con con will force the court to act.

 

[aireyc]

I will give them credit for making it seem like they're following Heller. The average person without a brain would read this and eat it up.

 

[Brooklyn]

No such person is reading the case or following the matter..

Lower court justices are political animals.. nothing more..

 

[fightinbluhen51]

No such person is reading the case or following the matter..

Lower court justices are political animals.. nothing more..

Well if SCOTUS denies Freidman, I guess you can say that all court justices are political animals and nothing more.

 

[press1280]

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



And this

A win considering this came from CA2. I was expecting them to reverse the District Court and OK the silly 7 round load limit.

 

[pcfixer]

I was going to stop reading, but I went to the next section and found this doozy:

Quote:

the regulated weapons are not nearly as popularly owned and used for self‐defense as the handgun, that “quintessential self‐defense weapon.” Thus these statutes implicate Second Amendment rights, but not to the same extent as the laws at issue in Heller and McDonald.

They can't be serious. So restrictions on Catholicism burden the 1A, but restrictions on Islam don't burden it to the same extent? Are they serious?

They're saying your choice in self-defense weapon is dependent on the choices of others.

I believe these judges like many misquote and therefore don't take the original intent of the cases. Heller quoted

arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition
of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
Pp. 54–56.

This is clearly taken out of context from Heller. "Dangerous and unusual weapons are clearly stated here as NFA items
"Firearms subject to the 1934 Act included shotguns and rifles having barrels less than 18 inches in length, certain firearms described as “any other weapons,” machineguns, and firearm mufflers and silencers." period. NOT Semi auto AR-15
This court also didn't use US vs Miller at all for contextual meaning.

Those who think the Supreme Court’s decision in U.S. v. Miller was a broad-based general ruling which gave the government license to restrict Americans’ civil right to be armed – should also accept the Court’s logic, and so considerplainly unconstitutional bans on:
♦ new manufacture of fully-automatic and semi-automatic military-type firearms;
♦ the new manufacture of detachable ammunition holders (magazines), especially those types of magazines which are standard U.S. military issue
♦ possession and sale of armor-piercing ammunition.
These types of firearms, accessories, and ammunition are precisely those most suitable for military and militia use. and have been so issued by the Federal government to U.S. armed forces. The Court held that the keeping and bearing ofsuch firearms was explicitly protected by the Second Amendment.
Those who think the Supreme Court made a narrow decision in 1939 – one which affected only short-barreled shotguns – should think the above bans are plainly unconstitutional, and so in need of Supreme Court review. The authors are of this opinion.
Thus, if an opportunity should arise for these matters to be brought before the Supreme Court, it is of paramount importance that powerful evidence — documentary and from expert witnesses – must be presented which establishes beyond even the slightest shadow of. doubt that:
♦ the use by U.S. military and militia forces of classes of firearms, ammunition, and magazines – civilians’ possession of which has been banned – makes such bans unconstitutional
♦ South v. Maryland ( 1856) and a large body of later Federal and State jurisprudence – by relieving the government of a duty to protect the average person – implicitly recognize the civil right of the law-abiding person to keep and bear arms for personal defense;
♦ if the law-abiding person has a civil right to be armed for self-defense, criminals’ abuse of firearms cannot be used to justify depriving the law-abiding of those firearms.

 

[DC-W]

We can rail all we want on reading comprehension, but that won't stop these penguins from spreading and emboldening tyranny.

 

[BeoBill]

I will give them credit for making it seem like they're following Heller. The average person without a brain would read this and eat it up.

You've just describes the lazy and sloppy "journalism" in the MSM. Written by idiots for imbeciles.

 

[Mr H]

You've just describes the lazy and sloppy "journalism" in the MSM. Written by idiots for imbeciles.

Decisions by the evil, for the complicit, to distribute to the sheeple.

 

[Brooklyn]

Well if SCOTUS denies Freidman, I guess you can say that all court justices are political animals and nothing more.

It's getting close.. Without the credible threat of action by the States up to and including a con con and the chaos that represents.. The court may well duck..

The fight for the public mind is critical..

 

[pcfixer]

fightinbluhen51 quotes. Well if SCOTUS denies Freidman, I guess you can say that all court justices are political animals and nothing more.

It's getting close.. Without the credible threat of action by the States up to and including a con con and the chaos that represents.. The court may well duck..

The fight for the public mind is critical..

Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government.

 

[Schipperke]

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

Guess that answers the Kolbe appeal..

 

[AssMan]

"Connecticut's prohibition...unconstitutionally infringes upon the Second Amendment right."

Now I'm no big-city lawyer, but I do recall that the Second Amendment reads "Shall not be infringed," not "Shall not be infringed beyond a point that's politically popular."


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Immersion]

I just hope the ruling on Monday doesn't mean we're in trouble. Sick of these fear mongering idiots in office.

 

[Maestro Pistolero]

I am astounded at the cognitive disconnect in the reasoning in this ruling. If a judge were to intentionally weave a poison pill of stupidity into a ruling, he could not have done a better job.

This ruling was not unexpected, of course, so it can hardly be disappointing for its result.

What is stunning, however, is the cognitive disconnect where the judge acknowledges, indeed seems to understand Heller's instructions as to commonality and use for lawful purposes, but then reaches the opposite conclusion without explanation.

What would be devastating is if the Supreme Court leaves this 'reasoning' untouched via a denial of cert, or much, much worse, takes the case and upholds it.

Just imagining the latter scenario puts a knot of despair in my stomach. What then? The amendment will have been eviscerated of its primary purpose as announced in the first clause. What then?

 

[eruby]

I am astounded at the cognitive disconnect in the reasoning in this ruling. If a judge were to intentionally weave a poison pill of stupidity into a ruling, he could not have done a better job.

This ruling was not unexpected, of course, so it can hardly be disappointing for its result.

What is stunning, however, is the cognitive disconnect where the judge acknowledges, indeed seems to understand Heller's instructions as to commonality and use for lawful purposes, but then reaches the opposite conclusion without explanation.

What would be devastating is if the Supreme Court leaves this 'reasoning' untouched via a denial of cert, or much, much worse, takes the case and upholds it.

Just imagining the latter scenario puts a knot of despair in my stomach. What then? The amendment will have been eviscerated of its primary purpose as announced in the first clause. What then?

Will have been? Unfortunately, it already has been.

Doesn't mean I'm giving up, I still heave breath. But NOTHING that the SCOTUS does or will do surprises me.

 

[kcbrown]

Just imagining the latter scenario puts a knot of despair in my stomach. What then? The amendment will have been eviscerated of its primary purpose as announced in the first clause. What then?

Did I not already describe how Heller does precisely that?