HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » new NY gun law challenged
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 10:20 PM

new NY gun law challenged

http://www.wktv.com/news/local/State-Supreme-Court-wants-NYS-to-show-good-cause-that-gun-law-is-constitutional-193664911.html

Since the SAFE Act bans guns in "common use" and was passed unread not to mention without NY's three day waiting period for public comment, this could be interesting.

17 replies, 1970 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 17 replies Author Time Post
Reply new NY gun law challenged (Original post)
gejohnston Feb 2013 OP
Eleanors38 Feb 2013 #1
ProgressiveProfessor Feb 2013 #2
gejohnston Feb 2013 #3
Loudly Feb 2013 #4
ProgressiveProfessor Feb 2013 #5
Straw Man Feb 2013 #7
gejohnston Feb 2013 #8
Loudly Feb 2013 #9
Straw Man Feb 2013 #11
ProgressiveProfessor Feb 2013 #13
Loudly Feb 2013 #6
Straw Man Feb 2013 #10
holdencaufield Feb 2013 #12
av8r1998 Feb 2013 #14
jmg257 Feb 2013 #15
kudzu22 Feb 2013 #16
av8r1998 Mar 2013 #17

Response to gejohnston (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 10:27 PM

1. 3 days? No comment? Faster than an Austin developer in heat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 10:36 PM

2. Having it set aside would provide some comic relief

However the NY state judiciary are pols in robes. It may create some fireworks, but little will change in the end.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #2)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 10:44 PM

3. aren't all judges politicians in robes?

or at least most of them?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 10:45 PM

4. That sounds very much like the bullshit trap in Heller.

You can circle the drain with how commonplace a certain firearm is in order to move the goal posts as to an acceptable weapon.

I will call you OUT on your Supreme Court boundary whenever I see you trying to invoke it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Loudly (Reply #4)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 11:00 PM

5. And you sound a lot like Shares United

And I and other call out zombies whenever we see them

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #5)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 11:11 PM

7. Indeed.

Loudly is Shares United, beyond any doubt. Undead as all get-out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #5)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 11:13 PM

8. I thought the new term was

Walker?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #5)


Response to Loudly (Reply #9)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 11:20 PM

11. I'm not going to alert on this.

Worshipful nursing on the barrel of a gun and methodical insertion of rounds of ammo into your lower GI tract.

I'll just observe that it is some seriously sick shit and opine that you should get professional help.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Straw Man (Reply #11)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 12:55 AM

13. Somebody did...

Wonder if they checked TOS. Shares United/Loudly is still under 1K posts so MIRT could look at them too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 11:08 PM

6. "In common use " is a loophole as big as a Mack Truck.

A typical ruse under Heller is to give the imprimatur of legitimacy to greater and greater lethality.

These scoundrels should be cremated rather than buried.

And their cremains scattered to the four winds.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Loudly (Reply #6)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 11:14 PM

10. Oh my ...

These are scoundrels should be cremated rather than buried.

And their cremains scattered to the four winds.

You're doing your "bloodthirsty" bit again. Do you want to wind up banned again? How many lives does a zombie get?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Loudly (Reply #6)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 12:47 AM

12. Based on your propensity to extreme violence ...

 

... I don't suggest you own a firearm. But, I acknowledge your right to do so under the Constitution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Loudly (Reply #6)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 07:20 AM

14. How is a SCOTUS decision a "Loophole"?

 

Heller was a smackdown of gun control overreach.
It's also the law of the land now.
Not a "Loophole".

loop·hole (lphl)
n.
1. A way of escaping a difficulty, especially an omission or ambiguity in the wording of a contract or law that provides a means of evading compliance.

There is no "evasion of compliance" here. The law itself was unconstitutional.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Original post)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 02:11 PM

15. Hmmm...How will a case on this new law affect the old AWB?

New York already has a ban on hi-cap mags and assault weapons similiar to the 1994 federal ban.

Could an examination of this new Act have an impact on the current laws?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Reply #15)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 02:45 PM

16. I would think the old law could be called into question too

If the court rules that standard-capacity magazines and common rifles are protected by the 2nd amendment, then New York's AWB is effectively struck down.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Reply #15)

Fri Mar 1, 2013, 09:20 AM

17. Depends

 

On how lower courts interperet "Common Use"
For example, the Glock 19 (Compact 9mm) pistol is one of the most common if not THE most common handgun on the planet.
It holds 15 rounds out of the box.

Some possible interpretations:
9mm compact firearms are in common use, therefore banning that type of firearm is unconstitutional, but "Arms" applies to weapons, not their component parts, so the mag ban is OK.

The most common defensive weapon in the world comes with 15 rounds. Therefore the mag ban is unconstitutional.

The largest mag capacity of the most commonly used type of pistols is 19 (Springfield XDM 9mm), therefore a mag ban is constitutional, but the most restrictive it can be is 19 for handguns, and 30 (standard capacity) for rifles.

Then, there is the additional complication with this law that you can posess a 10 round mag, but may not load more than 7 in the magazine. Could that be interpreted as a reasonable restriction, because they aren't banning the gun, just how it is used.

This case will be very interesting.
I suspect if it is found constitutional it will end up adjudicated in 2nd circuit, where it will be in conflict with other Federal Appellate Rulings. Eventually, it will get to SCOTUS where they will rule on the matter and set a framework for "Reasonable"

The other thing that is interesting is that it is a civil action. Nobody has been CRIMINALLY charged, and it is a criminal statute.
I am pretty sure, since this law has many other flaws, that it will be changed before this issue ever sees the inside of a courtroom.

The last thing Cuomo wants is to have even the 10 round mag ban thrown out.

Additionally, as noted in another thread, NYS Supreme Court is a trial court. They can only consider matters of law particular to the case. If they find the law unconstitutional, another action would need to be brought RE: the other law, absent an appeal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread