Federal judge upholds most of NY SAFE Act
New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo signs the NY SAFE act into law in January of 2013. Photo: Karen DeWitt
The New York Times is reporting that a federal judge has upheld most of New York’s gun law (sorry, paywalled link). Judge William M. Skretny of they Federal District Court in Buffalo ruled, the Times reports, that “New York’s expanded ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines was constitutional, but struck down a provision forbidding gun owners from loading their firearms with more than seven rounds.” He said the seven-round limit was an “arbitrary restriction” that violated the second amendment.
New York was the first state to pass the tougher new gun laws after the school shooting in Newtown, Conn., last December. The law, although popular downstate, has been controversial.
Tags: Cuomo, gun control, guns, new york state, ny safe act
.jpg)
“Since nobody thinks even one death is acceptable, doesn’t that mean you want to ban all firearms?”
Of course not. This is a silly, silly statement… but it it helpful in that it illustrate perfectly the rigid, binary conservative point of view on this topic.
Would you suggest that since we can’t prevent all accidents on the highway, we therefore should not have laws and regulations that help reduce accidents?!? Of course you wouldn’t. A reasonable person would suggest that we do what we can to reduce as many accidents as possible while still allowing people to drive on highways. When we regulate cars and restrict speeding no one is trying to “ban all driving!!!!”
Gun laws are no different. They won’t prevent all gun deaths, and they are not trying to “ban all guns”… they are just an attempt to help reduce those deaths.
“And no BS about what outcomes I do or do not support;”
It is no fun when people tell you what you support, right? So stop telling me that I really support banning all guns. I don’t… And neither does anyone else that I know of.
I’ve asked several times if you want to ban all guns and you consistently respond that you do not. OK. You also consistently advocate the theory that the more guns that are banned, the more people would be alive and the safer we would be. What then, is the logical outcome of that line of thought, if not to ban all guns so that nobody gets killed with a gun and we are all as safe as we can be? On further reflection, maybe you don’t want to ban all guns, just any guns you can. Seems like the same thing to me.
Also, you have some nerve calling me silly after posting that ridiculous video. That’s a hallmark of liberal philosophy: always trying to have it both ways if it suits your purpose.
“What then, is the logical outcome of that line of thought, if not to ban all guns so that nobody gets killed with a gun and we are all as safe as we can be?”
Larry, you’re trotting out the all-or-nothing slippery slope argument again and again, and carefully avoiding dealing with the parallel to the many other laws that aim to reduce death and injury in other areas. Why bother making speeding illegal, since people will still speed, resulting in death and injury?
Sure, if we wanted to eliminate every last gun death, we’d have to eliminate all guns. But no one is calling for that.
“Larry, you’re trotting out the all-or-nothing slippery slope argument again and again, and carefully avoiding dealing with the parallel to the many other laws that aim to reduce death and injury in other areas. Why bother making speeding illegal, since people will still speed, resulting in death and injury?”
Yeah, Larry is expressing a particularly black and white thought process on this one.
He seems to be claiming that if you are in favor of restricting some weapons in an attempt to reduce gun deaths… you MUST also be in favor of trying to restrict all weapons in an attempt to prevent all gun deaths.
That is an odd logical leap, especially because it defies the reality of so many other laws and regulations that we live under.
Traffic laws being the most obvious refutation of that logic… we don’t ban all cars or all driving in an effort to eliminate all traffic deaths, and we also don’t let people do whatever the heck they want on the highway… we instead do what we reasonably can in an effort to limit traffic deaths.
“Also, you have some nerve calling me silly after posting that ridiculous video.”
Sorry you didn’t like the video. What in particular did you find silly about it?
You don’t think it illustrated the difference between the weapons that were available when the second amendment was conceived vs the weapons that are now being used in mass shootings? That’s all it was doing.
Do we think that a guy that goes into a school and kills 7 children is a “mass murdering freak” (or whatever you guys were saying)? I do. If so then we will next need to ban all semi-automatic hunting rifles. How about 14 children? Then we need to ban semi-automatic 22 rifles (ones with a permanent magazine on the rifle) that are still perfectly legal under the SAFE act.
I understand the argument regarding the types of guns available during the revolutionary period and the ones we have today, but weren’t those muzzle loading rifles that Tony G. and others describe the state of the art military “assault” rifles of the day?
If that is the case it seems like a sound argument to say that the founders envisioned that citizens should have access to these military types of weapons for self defense? Otherwise the founding fathers might have limited the second amendment to bows and arrows or spears or other less deadly weapons of the time.
I personally am okay with bans on assault weapons and large capacity detachable clips (magazines whatever you prefer) but these arguments regarding what the framers of the constitution are interesting to think about.
This should read:
I personally am okay with bans on assault weapons and large capacity detachable clips (magazines whatever you prefer) but these arguments regarding what the framers of the constitution might have been thinking are interesting to think about.
Paul, I think your “semi-automatic 22 rifles (ones with a permanent magazine on the rifle)” is a 22 LR, no? That’s quite a different animal than a .223, far less likely to produce one death per round.
As for what the Framers had in mind, I’ve read that they were trying to satisfy slave owners looking to suppress slave revolts. I’m not sure we need to satisfy that need today. (Though I’m sure Larry and JDM will say I’m wrong!)
To be clear, I’m thinking of tubular magazines– is there any other kind that is permanently mounted and takes 14 rounds?
Walker, that is right. Not that I can think of. There are ones that load through the butt stock of the rifle and ones that load in a tubular magazine the runs parallel to the barrel and load from the muzzle end. These are very popular small game hunting rifles here is an example:
http://www.marlinfirearms.com/firearms/selfloading/60.asp
That model 60 also has what comes pretty close to a “pistol” type of grip. Are thumb hole stocks considered an assault feature in NYS? They were very popular with the apes in planet of the apes.
The one pistol grip type of rifle I have shot was a rifle I used for biathlon when I was trying that sport as a kid (German made rifle). Are they still legal in NYS?
Maybe the term “assault rifle” is the saving grace here, because by definition, a semi-automic rifle is not an assault rifle. Go ahead and ban assault rifles; I’ll keep my semi-automatics, thank you very much.
And thanks to the lawmakers who used the incorrect terminology.
“You don’t think it illustrated the difference between the weapons that were available when the second amendment was conceived vs the weapons that are now being used in mass shootings? That’s all it was doing.”
So what? You want to limit constitutional rights to what they were in the 18th century? That’s beyond stupid.
Peter, “the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban, which expired on September 13, 2004, codified the definition of an assault weapon. It defined the rifle type of assault weapon as a semiautomatic firearm with the ability to accept a detachable magazine and two or more of the following…” (Wikipedia)
The thing that is really disturbing (and somewhat funny) to me is how the gun manufacturers and the NRA can so easily manipulate their supporters. I understand that some people like to collect guns and have a variety because they appreciate the history of various manufacturers and the range of styles. I also understand the desire to keep weapons to hunt with, a varmint gun, a deer rifle, a shotgun or two for different purposes. And I even understand people wanting a weapon, either a handgun or shotgun or 22 to protect their home – I think they are wrong to believe those weapons are likely to actually make them safer, but I understand their position. I also understand using weapons for sporting purposes; I know some bi-atheletes (one an Olympic medalist) and guys on rifle teams (guys on a rifle team that has had few losses in decades, I might add).
What I don’t get is the number of people who are really not very well off financially who have tens or scores of guns and thousand of rounds of ammunition. The more they think the government is going to come and get their weapons the more weapons they buy. If they stuck to a couple three rifles, a couple of shotguns, and a couple of handguns I don’t see much problem – but when they get to owning 40 or 50 guns it seems like they have some sort of mental problem and maybe the government SHOULD come get their guns.
Let’s get this straight, the government is not coming to take all your guns away. Obama ain’t gonna git yer gun. He’s too busy trying to force you to get health insurance.
Marlo–Thanks for the thoughtful reply at 12:31 a.m. That helps me understand the issue.
“The one pistol grip type of rifle I have shot was a rifle I used for biathlon when I was trying that sport as a kid (German made rifle). Are they still legal in NYS?”
Paul, I don’t think the SAFE Act makes any weapons illegal, so long as the owner registers them by April 15. The only products banned outright are high-capacity magazines.
“…weren’t those muzzle loading rifles that Tony G. and others describe the state of the art military “assault” rifles of the day?”
I don’t know, but I’ve often read that the American forces were armed with squirrel guns and other hunting rifles. When they could get them, they used weapons captured from the British. Late in the war some were supplied with French muskets that were a bit more state-of-the-art, being lighter and firing a smaller ball.
“Your comment is awaiting moderation.”
Really? Why?
Well now that you’ve removed the moderation notice, could you remove my comment about it too? Thanks.