Quantcast
Skip to main content

The Second Amendment Just Took a MAJOR Hit in Federal Court

SAFE Act

This week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that New York’s controversial gun-control law, the SAFE Act, is constitutional. The SAFE Act greatly restricts what types of guns can be owned and substantially limits how and when guns can be transferred to private citizens.

According to the Times Union:

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.

The decision largely upheld a December 2013 ruling by federal Judge William Skretny of New York’s Western District that eliminated the SAFE Act’s demand that gun owners could load no more than seven rounds in their firearms — a requirement the state quickly backed away from after it became evident that seven-round magazines were unavailable.

Of course, the second-highest court in the land upholding the law paves the way for other states, and even the federal government, to pass similar laws without too much fear of a court challenge.

SAFE Act

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo called for the rest of the nation to follow New York’s example in a statement following the decision:

“Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld what we have long known to be true – that the core provisions of the NY SAFE Act do not violate the Second Amendment. Today, common sense prevailed.

“When we passed the SAFE Act, just days after the tragedies in Newtown and Webster, New York proved to the nation that it is possible to enact sensible gun control that coexists with the Second Amendment. We showed that it can be done with bi-partisan support from both urban and rural communities. And we took a fundamental step forward to help end the stream of senseless killings by keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and the dangerously mentally ill.

“This case validates a simple, fundamental truth about gun control: that it is possible to have strong laws that keep our communities safe, while at the same time respecting the rights of law-abiding gun owners. New York has set the example – and it’s far past time for Washington to follow suit and pass a sensible national gun control policy.”

Any new federal gun control push would likely not take place before the 2016 elections.

Whatever you do, make sure you get this information on your timelines. Make sure your friends and their friends know about this decision. Share your thoughts below in the comment section.

H/T – Times Union

Comments

15 Comments

  1. Kevin says:

    What part of infringed do liberals NOT understand ?? This IS an infringement plain and simple. Keep pushing for more restrictions……… When you push people who do nothing wrong, when you finally push us over the line remember this…….. You won’t have guns ……….. But we will. Trump 2016

  2. Art says:

    This is left wing bs. Circuit court decisions have no validity outside of their jurisdictions and cannot be applied or referred to as law in any other district. Another circuit court may read these decisions as reference material in deciding a case nothing more. As in the past, only one or two rogue districts will adopt these decisions. All the rest will flatly deny the validity of those circuit court decisions. As in the past, it will take an appeal to the SCOTUS to get them overturned, but overturned they will be….because the SCOTUS has already declared such laws to be blatantly unconstitutional. The shame is that it take this much garbage effort and cost to taxpayers to force these morons in socialist NY, and CA, to follow the law of the land!

  3. William says:

    Think you;ll get all our guns? Think again!

  4. Donald says:

    It isn’t a defeat, but a needed lost. It opens the door to the last step which is SCOTUS. The second appeals court is notoriously liberal and has not handed down any conservative ruling I know of. The good thing is the fact that the SCOTUS has already ruled in favor of the 2nd Amendment. The other small victory is the fact the 7 round capacity was found to be unconstitutional and 10 rounds have been reinstate. Now that doesn’t sound like much except at the Supreme Court explain what part of the constitution says that 10 rounds is the constitutional limit? New York politicians get their 10 round capacity from industry averages. They did math instead of reading the constitution. What’s key is that we don’t let any constitutional battle be a state only supported battle. The believers in the 2nd Amendment must unite nationally because if they get my state believe Cuomo’s words, he they expect to mount up and come after your state.

  5. William says:

    so lets ask the same question once again. law abiding citizens will obey this law, who’s gonna make the bad guys obey it?

  6. Kenneth says:

    THE FEDERAL COURTS HAVE NO AUTHORITY TO TELL WE THE PEOPLE WHAT THE 2ND AMENDMENT MEANS!

    In 1803, Chief Justice John Marshall, speaking for the court, famously declared that “it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is,” thus establishing in American constitutional law the doctrine of judicial review.

    In violation of the Constitution. This is not a power delegated to the United States by the Constitution.

    The common language of the Constitution does not give,”the judicial department the province and duty to say what the law is.” That authority rests on a an unconstitutional oath of office imposed on the judiciary by the Judiciary Act of 1789 and used by Chief Justice John Marshall and the Supreme Court, as the justification for the power of judicial review or the emphatical province and duty to say what the law is, in Marbury v Madison.

    Congress imposed an unconstitutional second oath of office and then with that oath of office the Supreme Court delegated the unconstitutional power of judicial review, to the judicial department. To wit: ” I, _____, do solemnly swear or affirm that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as _____, according to the best of my abilities and “understanding, agreeably to the Constitution” and laws of the United States. So help me God. (Judiciary Act of 1789, 1 Stat. 73, Sec.8)

    A judge swearing to discharge his duties agreeably to the Constitution of the United States is then defined in Marbury v Madison, the Supreme Court said, “Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the Constitution of the United States, if that constitution forms no rule for his government? If it is closed upon him, and cannot be inspected by him? If such be the real state of things, this is worse than solemn mockery. To prescribe, or to take this oath, becomes equally a crime”.

    According to Marbury v. Madison, it becomes a crime for a congressman to prescribe this oath and a crime for a justice or judge to take this oath, if the Constitution is closed upon him and cannot be inspected by him , thus, if a justice of judge takes this oath, the Constitution is not closed upon him and must be inspected by him or it will be a crime. This is the unconstitutional power of judicial review.

    Under Article VI, Sec. 3 of the Constitution, all United States justices and judges shall be bound by one oath to “support the Constitution”. The unconstitutional second oath of office in Marbury v. Madison of “understanding, agreeably to the Constitution” and constitutional oath of office to “support the Constitution” have totally dissimilar meanings. Otherwise everybody who takes an oath of office to “support the Constitution,” which is everybody in government except the president, would have the power to strike down a law as unconstitutional.

    The power to “understanding, agreeably to the Constitution” is not a power delegated to the United States by the Constitution. The power to “support the Constitution,” is.

    The 10th Amendment states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”Since all State employees are bound by oath to support the Constitution, they are prohibited by the Constitution to “understanding, agreeably to the Constitution,” thus, “We the People,” are delegated the reserve power of “understanding, agreeably to the Constitution” or, “the emphatical province and duty to say what the law is.”

    In the year of our lord 1787, our Constitution was ordained and established by,” We the People,” for ourselves and posterity.

    Once again the federal courts have no authority to tell We the People, what the 2nd Amendment means!

    IT IS NOW TIME FOR, “WE THE PEOPLE,” TO TAKE BACK OUR CONSTITUTION!

  7. jeradl says:

    The court’s logic is severely flawed on this. Where in the 2nd amendment did it say have the right to bear arms except if the govt thinks they have a special self preserving interest? In fact that is exactly what the 2nd amendment is supposed to protect against.

  8. James says:

    The founding fathers used very simple, deliberate words. What the hell part of “shall not be infringed” don’t you idiots on the courts find so hard to understanding?

    1. Tim says:

      James, yes they did. What part of “well regulated militia” is so hard for you to ubderstand?

  9. Robert says:

    What we’re doing here is letting a group of people who have lost control of their children, tell the rest of us we have to surrender our second amendment rights so their children will stop gang banging. These knuckleheads have representation in Government, make no mistake about it.

  10. Farmer says:

    Federal Judges are the nearest thing we have as royalty. Appointed for life with really no means for removal. The Constitution does not provide for Activist Judges, but we have them.

  11. Joe says:

    It will be overturned.

  12. Frank says:

    These jurists should be removed from the bench forthwith! The core provision of the 2nd Amendment is “the right of the People to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed”. If these nincompoops don’t understand the meaning of “infringed” they have no business sitting in judgement on anyone.

    1. Robert says:

      Stalin had a name for people who had sympathy for communist ideology. He called them “useful idiots.” It’s the fringe groups that get these people into office. Bernie Sanders comes to mind.

    2. Tim says:

      Frank, what part of “well regulated militia” do you not understand?

Advertisement