New York’s idiotic new gun law will be challenged in court:
Any Supreme Court action is years away, but many scholars think it’s inevitable in wake of two previous cases.
In the 2008 case of District of Columbia v. Heller, the high court for the first time established that the Second Amendment protects the individual right to bear arms.
And in McDonald v. Chicago of 2010, the justices ruled that the Second Amendment also applies to state and local gun laws.
For its part, the Cuomo administration says the SAFE Act will withstand its coming review in the federal courts.
“We believe that our law is sound and is immune from constitutional challenge,” said Richard Azzopardi, a spokesman for the governor. “Heller is the broadest reading of the Second Amendment that has ever come down, and the SAFE Act is consistent with that decision.”
Note that these are the same morons who restricted the use of guns to magazine capacities that didn’t exist, and forgot to exempt law enforcement from them.
Federal court decisions in the case will be “grounded on principles established by the Supreme Court over the last several years that seem to produce a robust set of problems for lots of aspects of the New York law,” said Nicholas A. Johnson, a Fordham University law professor and co-author of the book, “Firearms Law and the Second Amendment.”
Those problems go beyond the Second Amendment, Johnson noted.
The lawsuit filed in Buffalo challenges several provisions of the SAFE Act as being unconstitutionally vague, contending they conflict with the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of due process under the law.
For example, the law’s definition of assault weapons includes some guns that include a pistol grip “that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon.”
Which raises the question: how big is a conspicuously protruding pistol grip?
It may be up to the courts to decide, which is nothing unusual. Johnson said gun-rights activists have been routinely challenging gun-control laws for 20 years on the grounds that their wording is too vague.
Such issues arise because of the “technically inept descriptions” of weapons in many gun control laws, Johnson added.
My emphasis. He’s being kind. For “technically inept” read “imbecilic.” In addition to the nonsensical “common-sense” phrase used by these people to describe their rapacity on our constitutional rights, the other phrase that they currently use in preference to the stupid “assault weapons” is “military-style weapons,” which “no one needs.” Unwittingly, they don’t even understand how that gives away the game on their stupidity in trying to outlaw commonly-used weapons for purely cosmetic reasons. It’s about “style,” don’t you see? It actually has nothing to do with actual function. They just want to outlaw the guns because they’re scary looking.
Anyway, they may end up regretting this if it results in the SCOTUS sweeping away much of their existing laws. But at least the law-abiding people in Washington DC and Chicago — and New York — will be safer once their draconian disarmament is off the books.
A comeback for every time someone calls them military style is to say “No, really, they’re more of a police style. The military doesn’t use this weapon, the police do.”
And a Civic with a spoiler is a “race-style vehicle”.
But it ain’t any faster.
Try telling them that style cues aren’t Truth and they look at you like you have two heads…
I think everyone is missing the point; the overly vague and inept descriptions aren’t a bug, they are a feature – in the eyes of those writing them: the gun-banners.
Why? Because then it all comes down to interpretation, and who gets to interpret? Why, they do, of course. They’ll just come up with lists of guns that they think match the vague descriptions they’ve created, and that’ll be most everything. Does it have a muzzle velocity of over five feet per second? So do military weapons, so it’s banned!
I also find it rather scary that so many seem to rely an the Supreme Court to get rid of these blatantly unconstitutional laws. Sorry, but that may be ill-founded. In the long term, it certainly is ill founded. Right now, there are a hell of a lot of 5-4 decisions. So, we’re one heartbeat (or other medical issue) amongst the 5 elderly conservative or swing judges away from a liberal majority on the SC. And now we’re seeing gun control legislation coming out of the woodwork, where just a year ago it was the ‘accepted wisdom’ that the gun control battles were a thing of the past. Coincidence? I think not.
I also remember how sure people on both sides were that the SC would slap down Obamacare. I got laughed at for saying it wouldn’t happen (I wished it would, but I didn’t think it likely). So please, don’t rely on the SC.
You’re right. A lot of people seem to have accepted the premise that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what is and is not Constitutional. I think that is deeply misguided. It gives disproportionate power to nine judges who are appointed for life.
Remember the campaign finance reform bill? It was passed by Congress and signed by President Bush. I think they both wanted to be seen as “doing something” and expected it to be overturned by the Court. It wasn’t.
The “military-style” tag is even more witless than it looks when you remember that the point of the Second Amendment is to ensure that citizens can fight in a war – that’s what the “well-regulated militia” clause actually says, straight out. Any weapon that’s a standard part of an infantryman’s kit, or can be substituted for such a part, is one of the arms that a citizen has the right to keep and bear. Laws restricting those weapons are forbidden by the Second Amendment, as strongly as laws restricting the publication of newspapers are forbidden by the First.
Yes, and following that logic to its conclusion would mean that we are not only allowed semi-automatics, but select-fire versions. Has the ban against machine guns ever been challenged?
They’ll just ban everything with a muzzle velocity over 5 feet per second, because “military” weapons have a muzzle velocity over 5fps.
As an aside to anyone not used to working with FPS as a measure of speed, 5fps is about average walking speed for a human. 🙂
When they write laws, they want them to be vague. The purpose is so it is the politician in charge and not the law itself. It’s pure tyranny.
Rule of law actually defense us from tyranny. They certainly can’t allow that!!!
DefenseDefends… yeah, my mind wanders while I type.Mine only wanders at two times; when I’m typing, and when I’m not typing. Other than that, it’s fine.
The latest Obama/Biden piece of propaganda, “Weapons of War”
What is the penalty for a congressman who introduces a bill which infringes upon the right to keep and bear arms?
The penalty is receiving campaign contributions from gun control groups. The penalty should be expulsion.
Well, that’s just great. Now what am I supposed to do with all these chicken feathers and all this tar…
If you take the gun-control crusaders seriously at their word as to what they fear and what they claim they want restricted, (as opposed to the obvious lies about ‘reasonableness’ ‘we respect the second amendment’ and ‘no one will take your gun away’), then the only type of weapon they will let the public keep is double-barreled shotguns.
How else can an informed gun owner interpret the demonization of “weapons of war” (which would have to include all bolt action rifles) and of “armor piercing ammunition” (which would have to include all centerfire rifle ammunition)?
Instapundit recently published a “Gun Controllers’ Gun Taxonomy”:
“Saturday Night Specials” (cheap handguns) = Bad, must be banned
“Military Style Handguns” (expensive handguns) = Bad, must be banned
“Assault Weapons” (inaccurate, short-range rifles) = Bad, must be banned
“Sniper Rifles” (accurate, long-range rifles) = Bad, must be banned