Federal court upholds SAFE Act

[Ron]

New Yorks unconstitutional gun law upheld in Federal Court.

In a decision released Monday, a three-judge panel concluded that the “core provisions” of the expanded ban on assault weapons in both states “do not violate the Second Amendment” because they are “substantially related to the achievement of an important governmental interest” — in this case public safety and crime reduction — and are therefore subject to intermediate and not strict court scrutiny.

http://blog.timesunion.com/capitol/archives/241960/federal-court-upholds-safe-act/

The SAFE Act is a complete ban on the sale or transfer of all military-style semi-automatic rifles manufactured within the past several decades.  It is a total ban on the AR-15, AK-47, M-14/M-1a, HK G3, Steyr AUG, and many other civilian copies of military firearms.  Prior to the passage of the law, Gov. Cuomo publicly stated that he was considering "confiscation" of existing rifles, but the final version of the law allowed existing owners to keep their rifles as long as they registered them with the State.  Upon the death of the owner, the rifle will be confiscated; it cannot be transferred to an heir within New York State.

The SAFE Act also enacted a complete ban on the possession of all firearm magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds.  The law contains no "grandfather" provision for previously legal items.

Beyond that, the SAFE Act banned all private transfers of firearms, except among spouses, parents, and children; it created an ammunition purchase background check and ammunition purchase registry; it banned the private sale of ammunition except from a licensed dealer; and it created a secret reporting requirement under which "mental health professionals" must report anyone suspected of being a "danger" to the State Police for mandatory gun confiscation.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/10/court_decision_paves_the_way_for_australianstyle_gun_ban.html

[brimic]

This can  actually be a good thing- if it goes to SCOTUS.

[Ron]

This can  actually be a good thing- if it goes to SCOTUS.

You have more faith in SCOTUS than I do. I still can't figure out why they've been protecting the 2nd while wrecking all the rest of our rights. At some point they are going to rule against us, the ratchet only turns left.

[Devonai]

Re: Connecticut:

I wonder if there's an angle on deprivation of property when it comes to the magazine situation here. Mags are grandfathered, if they're registered, but you still have to underload them to 10 rounds outside the home, and only the mag in your weapon can be "hi-cap." Any spares you carry must be mechanically fixed to 10 rounds.

Of course, in light of Heller SCOTUS might toss the whole thing, but I find the mag situation to be particularly offensive.

[RevDisk]

I thought Heller said no blank bans of common weapons. Isn't this the polar opposite of that ruling?

[Ben]

Re: Connecticut:

I wonder if there's an angle on deprivation of property when it comes to the magazine situation here. Mags are grandfathered, if they're registered, but you still have to underload them to 10 rounds outside the home, and only the mag in your weapon can be "hi-cap." Any spares you carry must be mechanically fixed to 10 rounds.

Of course, in light of Heller SCOTUS might toss the whole thing, but I find the mag situation to be particularly offensive.

Related to that, CA (led by Governor in waiting Gavin Newsom) is pushing for an "ammo instant check" ballot initiative (legislation that has been vetoed in several iterations by Gov Brown), which would include a ban on "large capacity" magazines. The current ban only includes new magazines and older mags are grandfathered in. The ballot initiative would require all mags over 10 rounds to be turned in.

As in other states where firearms related "turn them in" has occurred, I'm sure compliance would be low (I predict in the single digit percentages). The point is that these are once again examples of the "shrinking pie". They continually reset where they're arguing from with the, "we're not infringing on your rights, we're just taking this one little thing" argument. First it was "no new mags", now it's "no mags".

Tangent - the CA initiative, if it makes it to the ballot, would also "require felons to relinquish weapons".   This is as bad as the "gun show loophole". These guys seem to have zero idea of what laws are already on the books, or else they do, but figure they have enough unknowledgeable sheeple to say "That's a great idea! I'm voting for it!!"


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/10/19/top-california-official-pushes-ammo-background-checks/?intcmp=hplnws

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/10/19/top-california-official-pushes-ammo-background-checks/?intcmp=hplnws

[Firethorn]

Tangent - the CA initiative, if it makes it to the ballot, would also "require felons to relinquish weapons".   This is as bad as the "gun show loophole". These guys seem to have zero idea of what laws are already on the books, or else they do, but figure they have enough unknowledgeable sheeple to say "That's a great idea! I'm voting for it!!"

On this note, on my other main forum the question came up of 'what do you want to see change for gun laws', and 90% of the time I'm telling them 'already in place'.

And I mean stuff like "We need to have federal list of people not allowed to have firearms!"

[Angel Eyes]

I thought Heller said no blank bans of common weapons. Isn't this the polar opposite of that ruling?

It did.  Lower courts are ignoring it.

[charby]

It did.  Lower courts are ignoring it.

or wanting SCOTUS to strike it down, that way it is nationwide.

[Scout26]

USSC ruling are only binding nation-wide if the the Left agrees with the ruling...

[T.O.M.]

My worry since Heller is when SCOTUS gets the next case (and SAFE may be the one) and crafts some kind of "reasonable restriction" language.  It's going to on be hard to completely set aside Heller, but much easier for them so find some restrictions (magazine capacity jumps to mind) as being a reasonable restriction in the interest ofnpublic safety.  Fear they treat it like 1A and the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" example as a reasonable restriction in the public interest.  In ruling this way, they don't overturn Heller, don't looklike they are pandering to the antis, but give the antis a big bat to swing at use for decades while cases crawl through the courts trying to define what's a reasonabke restriction under 2A.

[Mannlicher]

face it.  The most implacable enemy of freedom is our own government.

[Hawkmoon]

I thought Heller said no blank bans of common weapons. Isn't this the polar opposite of that ruling?

Yes, it is. The NY/CT ruling acknowledged that the weapons in question are in common use, then determined that the states could ban them anyway. Basically it was another court using intermediate scrutiny and calling it strict scrutiny, and on that basis it should be a slam dunk to be overturned at the SCOTUS level.

Stay tuned.

[Perd Hapley]

My worry since Heller is when SCOTUS gets the next case (and SAFE may be the one) and crafts some kind of "reasonable restriction" language.  It's going to on be hard to completely set aside Heller, but much easier for them so find some restrictions (magazine capacity jumps to mind) as being a reasonable restriction in the interest ofnpublic safety.  Fear they treat it like 1A and the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" example as a reasonable restriction in the public interest.  In ruling this way, they don't overturn Heller, don't looklike they are pandering to the antis, but give the antis a big bat to swing at use for decades while cases crawl through the courts trying to define what's a reasonabke restriction under 2A.

Of course, if they can ban magazines in common use, and especially common in military circles, then they can ban small arms in common use, and most common in the military.

Military small arms, of course, being the arms most directly referred to by the second amendment.

[erictank]

Of course, if they can ban magazines in common use, and especially common in military circles, then they can ban small arms in common use, and most common in the military.

Military small arms, of course, being the arms most directly referred to by the second amendment.

It has always blown my mind that people have, for DECADES, claimed that the Miller decision means the exact opposite of what it actually says and use that misinterpretation to ban ownership of weapons useful to the preservation and efficacy of the militia.

It's like they can't read.  Or, really, won't.

[roo_ster]

face it.  The most implacable enemy of freedom is our own government.

You only say that because our own government is the likeliest organization on earth to curtail our liberties or kill our fellow citizens (given past performance).

[TommyGunn]

It has always blown my mind that people have, for DECADES, claimed that the Miller decision means the exact opposite of what it actually says and use that misinterpretation to ban ownership of weapons useful to the preservation and efficacy of the militia.

It's like they can't read.  Or, really, won't.

The reason they get away with it is the case was remanded back down to lower court, but since Miller & the codefendant were either dead or missing, nothing became of the case, which depended on facts relating to a short-barreled shotgun.  Having essentially rendered a "null" decision, SCOTUS did not authoritatively state "THE NFA OF 1934 IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL,'' so while one may claim one thing or another, it remains legally intact, on a national level.
The lower court that heard the case blew the NFA out of the water .... but, unfortunatly, that was not SCOTUS, so the decision does not apply to the United States of America.

Most people think US. v. Miller approved the NFA as law; many of these people would be surprised to find out that neither Miller or codefendant were present in SCOTUS, nor was any defense counsel; only the U.S. Solicitor General.
In effect, conditions as it was, the SG could read in a case, but there could be no general trial.  With Miller & codefendant gone, they could have been tried en absentia, but without a defense counsel, even that was not possible.  But SCOTUS essentially, as I said, took no action on the NFA; it couldn't.

[brimic]

face it.  The most implacable enemy of freedom is our own government.

"...a government of the people, by the people, for the people"

Whenever I hear the words "the people" and "government" in the same language, I assume that my pocket is about to be picked, or that I'm going to have natural rights legislated away and replaced with 'victim class rights.'

[seeker_two]

My worry since Heller is when SCOTUS gets the next case (and SAFE may be the one) and crafts some kind of "reasonable restriction" language.  It's going to on be hard to completely set aside Heller, but much easier for them so find some restrictions (magazine capacity jumps to mind) as being a reasonable restriction in the interest ofnpublic safety.  Fear they treat it like 1A and the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" example as a reasonable restriction in the public interest.  In ruling this way, they don't overturn Heller, don't looklike they are pandering to the antis, but give the antis a big bat to swing at use for decades while cases crawl through the courts trying to define what's a reasonabke restriction under 2A.

If SCOTUS thought the blowback from the gay marriage decision was bad, wait until they see the Unintended Consequences of that decision.....

[Pb]

The reason they get away with it is the case was remanded back down to lower court, but since Miller & the codefendant were either dead or missing, nothing became of the case, which depended on facts relating to a short-barreled shotgun.  Having essentially rendered a "null" decision, SCOTUS did not authoritatively state "THE NFA OF 1934 IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL,'' so while one may claim one thing or another, it remains legally intact, on a national level.
The lower court that heard the case blew the NFA out of the water .... but, unfortunatly, that was not SCOTUS, so the decision does not apply to the United States of America.

Most people think US. v. Miller approved the NFA as law; many of these people would be surprised to find out that neither Miller or codefendant were present in SCOTUS, nor was any defense counsel; only the U.S. Solicitor General.
In effect, conditions as it was, the SG could read in a case, but there could be no general trial.  With Miller & codefendant gone, they could have been tried en absentia, but without a defense counsel, even that was not possible.  But SCOTUS essentially, as I said, took no action on the NFA; it couldn't.

I think you are mistaken about Miller.

The entire case was a set-up to approve the NFA.

The original judge, who declared the NFA "unconstitional" was in fact an anti-gun activist.  The only reason he found "for" the defendant was to get the case kicked upstairs to the Supreme Court- so they would overturn his on ruling!

They did exactly what he wanted, and the NFA has been upheld ever since.

It was an anti-gun ruling, and complete BS.

[TommyGunn]

I think you are mistaken about Miller.

The entire case was a set-up to approve the NFA.

The original judge, who declared the NFA "unconstitional" was in fact an anti-gun activist.  The only reason he found "for" the defendant was to get the case kicked upstairs to the Supreme Court- so they would overturn his on ruling!

They did exactly what he wanted, and the NFA has been upheld ever since.

It was an anti-gun ruling, and complete BS.

Well, I am not sure how the lower court judge you refer to could have known that neither Miller or his codependent would be absent from court, or the firm defending the duo would, due to financial shortcomings, drop the case.
IMHO you're right that the case was BS, I just don't believe it happened in the manner described.

[Pb]

Miller originally tried to plead GUILTY to NFA violations!  The judge didn't let him.

Here's some info about the Judge who found "for" the Second Amendment in the original trial.... he was a rabid gun-banner:

D. JUDGE RAGON
The newspapers assumed Miller was a “test case of the National
Firearms Act.” They were probably right. The government
needed a Supreme Court precedent holding that federal gun control
does not violate the Second Amendment. Ragon teed up the case.
Ragon did not really think the NFA violated the Second
Amendment, and probably colluded with the government to create
the ideal test case. His opinion is peculiar on its face, begging for an
appeal. A memorandum disposition is appropriate when deciding a
routine case, but not when holding a law facially unconstitutional.

And Ragon was the first judge to hold that a federal law violates the
Second Amendment, even disagreeing with a Florida district court
that had dismissed a Second Amendment challenge to the NFA.110
Before he became a judge, Ragon represented the Fifth District
of Arkansas in Congress from 1923 to 1933.111 As a congressman,
he was a vocal advocate of federal gun control. In 1924, Ragon
introduced an unsuccessful bill prohibiting the importation of guns
in violation of state law,112 and vigorously supported another bill
prohibiting the mailing of most pistols, which eventually passed in
1927.113
Basically, Ragon wanted to prohibit firearms used by
criminals, including pistols.114 “I want to say that I am unequivocally
opposed to pistols in any connection whatever. If you want
something in the home for defense, there is the shotgun and the
rifle, but a pistol is primarily for the purpose of killing somebody.”115
And he specifically dismissed Second Amendment objections
to federal gun control. “I cannot see that violence to the Constitution
which my friend from Texas sees in this bill.”116 If Arkansas
could prohibit pistols, so could the United States.117

Read this article:
http://uknowledge.uky.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1263&context=law_facpub

US v. Miller was a deliberate and successful attempt to screw the Second Amendment.

[TommyGunn]

......US v. Miller was a deliberate and successful attempt to screw the Second Amendment.

The NFA was that, before Miller.
Originally, the NFA banned handguns as well as machine guns and other types of   weapons it eventually did cover.
I   have read a good deal about Miller but have never heard your theory.   It's interesting -- and obviously a lot of  ..... "shenanigans"  went on with regards to gun laws and Miller  in general I think Ragon could have found Miller guilty in the lower court rather than going through the Machiavellian machinations of finding him innocent as doing what he did would make it unnecessary for Miller to appeal, thus reducing the chance of SCOTUS involved.
But at this point in time I have to wonder how possible it is to find out what was Ragon's more covert motives.  It was twice as long ago as the JFK assassination and we still argue how many rifleman there were in Dallas...........