New York Firearms Forum banner

1 - 11 of 11 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,291 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
New York

Judge Skretny also failed to examine other aspects of the law. For example, he concludes that "SAFE Act's requirement that ammunition sales be conducted 'face-to-face' does not unduly burden interstate commerce." But in New York, going through a federally licensed firearms dealer to get a background check on ammunition purchases reportedly adds $85 in costs to the average purchase; there are also the time costs involved in having to drive to a physical store. And these costs fall hardest on the very people who most need guns for protection - poor blacks who live in high-crime urban areas.

Or take his claim of public-safety benefits from registering guns. Not a single study is cited showing that registration reduces crime. Whether in Canada, Hawaii, Chicago, or Washington, D.C., police seem unable to point to a single violent crime where registration has helped their investigation. During a recent deposition, D.C. police chief Cathy Lanier said she couldn't "recall any specific instance where registration records were used to determine who committed a crime."

The judge's reliance on the left-wing Mother Jones magazine to buttress claims about mass shootings is almost comical. Even liberal academic James Alan Fox described the data collected by the magazine as relying on "questionable motive-based selectivity" and criteria that are "not necessarily applied consistently."

Hopefully an appeals court will be more careful with the evidence. Courts should prevent people from exercising "fundamental rights" only when there is clear evidence that restrictions actually benefit public safety.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,768 Posts
Which means, in imo, that we have a good shot at appeal and definitely at SCOTUS if it gets that far. Using a non-academic magazine (like Mother Jones) to make judicial decisions is like a doctor making a medical decision based on a drug commercial.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,522 Posts
Which is why we will win in SCOTUS..

And im confident they will take it because this is highly fundemental much like Heller/McDonald as compared to something like Kachalsky which (i of course view as fubdemental,but i can see how they might not feel as strongly about carrying in public) isnt on the same level as the unsafe act.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,007 Posts
Which means, in imo, that we have a good shot at appeal and definitely at SCOTUS if it gets that far. Using a non-academic magazine (like Mother Jones) to make judicial decisions is like a doctor making a medical decision based on a drug commercial.
The Mother Jones thing somehow makes me feel that Skretny's clerk might have had a little bit of "help" from someone in writing the decision.

You're right, it's not something that a judge would normally ever quote from, but gun grabber groups and advocates quote from sources like that all the time.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
774 Posts
If the Judge rules that 7 rounds violated the 2nd amendment, then why does the banned on assault weapons not violate the 2nd amendment?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,238 Posts
New York

Judge Skretny also failed to examine other aspects of the law. For example, he concludes that "SAFE Act's requirement that ammunition sales be conducted 'face-to-face' does not unduly burden interstate commerce." But in New York, going through a federally licensed firearms dealer to get a background check on ammunition purchases reportedly adds $85 in costs to the average purchase; there are also the time costs involved in having to drive to a physical store. And these costs fall hardest on the very people who most need guns for protection - poor blacks who live in high-crime urban areas.

Or take his claim of public-safety benefits from registering guns. Not a single study is cited showing that registration reduces crime. Whether in Canada, Hawaii, Chicago, or Washington, D.C., police seem unable to point to a single violent crime where registration has helped their investigation. During a recent deposition, D.C. police chief Cathy Lanier said she couldn't "recall any specific instance where registration records were used to determine who committed a crime."

The judge's reliance on the left-wing Mother Jones magazine to buttress claims about mass shootings is almost comical. Even liberal academic James Alan Fox described the data collected by the magazine as relying on "questionable motive-based selectivity" and criteria that are "not necessarily applied consistently."

Hopefully an appeals court will be more careful with the evidence. Courts should prevent people from exercising "fundamental rights" only when there is clear evidence that restrictions actually benefit public safety.
Nice words. We know the check and balances are badly broken and judges have political agendas.
Let's see if we can find someone somewhere who can restore due process and faith.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
249 Posts
If the Judge rules that 7 rounds violated the 2nd amendment, then why does the banned on assault weapons not violate the 2nd amendment?
If I read the decision correctly, he DIDN'T rule on the constitutionality of the 7 rounds. His ruling was just on the arbitrary nature of the 7 rounds, thus punting n even that provision. My personal opinion is that he was just playing CYA because he knew how ludicrous his ruling was so he threw a bone to the pro-2A crowd to avoid criticism
 
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
Top