Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.8
Site Design by Sekimori

« NY reports on its new gun law | Main | My article critiquing the McDonald dissents is online »

Federal judge upholds NY SAFE Act, strikes part of magazine limit

Posted by David Hardy · 31 December 2013 05:20 PM

Story here. He upheld the ban on magazines holding more than ten rounds, but struck down the provision banning putting more than seven rounds in one of them.

UPDATE: Here's the decision itself. The judge strikes the seven round limit, because it is impossible to believe that a bad guy with a ten round mag will obey the law and only load seven rounds, so the law bears no relationship to the government's interest. He also strikes the definition of assault rifle that includes a firearm with a "muzzle break" on the grounds that it is meaningless, and he is unwilling to hold that a law can be applied by correcting a mis-spelling. (That error gives us an idea of how carefully the legislature considered what it was enacting).

· State legislation

5 Comments | Leave a comment

Mark-1 | January 1, 2014 9:12 AM | Reply

Not a bonafide lawyer by any means. MHO Bottom line, political hack judge pandering to the elephant in the room argument that 7 rounds is simply just plain and simple arbitrary and also pandering to NY's gun law advocates. He wants to sit on the fence, not mend it.

Baffled by the decision's weaving in and out of scrutiny issues. I must be a dull fellow, but:
How can the banned gun in your home be treated with higher level to pass constitutional muster, but if it’s in your car then has lower (intermediate) level of muster? The 2A makes no such distinction I’m aware of.

Other thoughts, but I don't want to clog the blog.

fwb | January 1, 2014 12:05 PM | Reply

And we all should know that the problem of state level gun controls was created when Chief Justice Marshall screwed up and decided the Bill of Rights did not bind the states back in 1833. Had Marshall been able to read and had Marshall been an honest and honorable man we would not have this problem. Nothing in the Constitution gives even the tiniest hint that the Second and other amendments were not and are not binding on the states. In fact, the opposite is true. In the absence of a limiting clause like the First Amendment, the other Amendments fall under the supremacy clause wherein the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Marshall screwed up everything. If it were not for him, we wouldn't have the fouled up Doctrine of Incorporation that latter courts pulled out their arses. Under Incorporation, the courts leave holes in our rights large enough to drive a train through. IMO, it is the courts that have caused more problems than the other two branches by thinking they, as subordinates of the Constitution, actually have authority to interpret the Constitution, a power that the courts cannot legally or legitimately have because the Constitution creates them.

The 2nd in clear and concise. No infringement. No laws at fed or state level restricting Arms.

Granny grunch | January 1, 2014 4:47 PM | Reply

An o3 Springfield holds 5 in a clip. A 1911 holds 7 in the mag. A SMLE holds 10. An M1 holds 8. Jeepers..what more do you need?

Matthew Carberry | January 1, 2014 5:05 PM | Reply

A BAR holds 20, an M1 Carbine holds 15, or 30 in the M2. The Thompson holds 20, or 50. The High Power holds 13. And that ignores the German STGs.

Regardless, within 10 years of the end of the war all of those low standard capacities you cite were seen as insufficient and obsolete.

Examined rationally, higher standard capacity magazines provide little advantage to an attacker; who can plan ahead to bring as many magazines as they need and who controls the time and place of the attack.

They only really benefit defenders, who must attempt to thwart the attack from behind the curve and with only the amount of magazines they can reasonably carry.

KM | January 2, 2014 1:02 AM | Reply

Not carry, but have in the gun at the time of the attack. THAT is the one that will be pressed into service at the worst time.

Someone once wrote: "I've never talked to a gunfight survivor that wished they had less ammo."

Leave a comment