Posted on 01/01/2014 3:51:01 AM PST by newyorkcityguns
Gun control advocates won a major victory Tuesday, but the fight over New York’s SAFE Act is far from over.
An appeal of Chief U.S. District Judge William M. Skretny’s decision upholding most of the new law is all but guaranteed.
And that appeal may come from supporters of the law, as well.
“I think there’s going to be appeals on both sides,” said Brian T. Stapleton, a lawyer for the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, one of the groups fighting the law.
Stapleton’s prediction is based on Skretny’s decision to uphold two key elements of the law, the state’s ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, and his rejection of a third component, the seven-round limit for magazines.
The judge called the seven-round limit “tenuous, strained and unsupported.”
In a decision that has been much anticipated, Skretny said most of the SAFE Act is constitutional and should remain in effect.
(Excerpt) Read more at buffalonews.com ...
Why do we keep trusting in courts that have repeatedly defended the indefensible? We hope they will do the right thing and they always disappoint us. We’re like Charlie Brown trying to kick the football that Lucy is holding.
NEWS FLASH: THE RULE OF LAW HAS BEEN KILLED. ELMER FUDD AND THE COURTS HAVE KILLED IT.
Time to move from the jury box to _____(fill in the blank) box.
THE BLAZE
‘Looks Like Weimar Germany’: The Viral Photo Out of Connecticut That’s Giving Some Gun Owners Chills Dec. 31, 2013 10:32pm Jason Howerton
A now-viral photo showing a long line of Connecticut residents waiting to register their guns and ammo is circulating across the Internet — and it’s sending chills down the backs of some gun owners. 
Via: http://www.theblaze.com 
It should send chills down the backs of all legitimate gun owners—not just some.If you think that the Socialists are going to stop in NY,CT, and CA you got another think coming.
This non-existent "noble cause" clause that the Left keeps "finding" in the Constitution, has gone far enough. The People will either rise up or be plowed under. It will be interesting to see which way it goes.
I'd be loadin up the truck and headin outta town...oh, let's say, to the deep south.
Better to be illegitimate. And prepared.
I have trouble wrapping my mind around this logic: Seven round limit is unsupported, but high-capacity is? And what is the definition of high capacity here?
I will never register my firearms. I will stay prepared.
For my part I’m upping my cardiovascular and working with a new concentration on unarmed skills. Every morning soon after I open my eyes, I think: If I knew the war was starting next week, what would I do. If I knew they would throw me in prison next week, what would I do. And then I get my ass up.
If the unofficial reports are correct, only about 10% of NY is expected to comply. Those are likely higher profile gun owners like elected officials, law enforcement and firearms competitors. The rest are in rebellion.
ANY judge that can look at the 2A, Art 6 para 2, and the text of this law and not strike it down entirely is no longer “judging”... But “making” law in direct contravention to what he is supposed to do.
These people are traitors. Pure and simple. They aren’t just “wrong”. They aren’t just following stare decisis. They are doing this deliberately to subvert our Republic and deserve a traitors end...
Look up Murbury vs Madison, then go to Title 18 USC, Treason, Misprision of treason, and seditious conspiracy....
Every one of these gun grabbing swine are guilty of it.
If that is not enough then go to Title 26 & 27 and see the real definition of a "Firearm".
If that isn't enough then look up the Dick Act of 1902... which nullifies every "gun control" law that was ever enacted, or will be enacted.
Their words/laws on paper...
A general principle which I think judges would have understood in the Eighteenth Century, but to which today's judges seem oblivious, is that a person can only act with legitimate authority if the person is making a good-faith effort to act within the terms of that authority. A second related principle is that there can be reasons an action may be illegitimate but not justify a remedy. A good-faith belief in the legitimacy of one's actions may sometimes preclude a remedy, but someone who deliberately acts in a way which is illegitimate but for which no remedy would generally be available acts illegitimately, and the bad faith in and of itself should justify a remedy even if the action otherwise would not.
With regard to the question of how much abridgement is too much, the answer should be that any deliberate attempt to discourage any free persons from arming themselves, for individual and collective defense, as effectively they might otherwise do, is illegitimate. It may be possible to write some firearm-related laws which would not discourage any free persons' effective armament, and such laws would be legitimate, but I doubt anyone could look at the gun-control statutes politicians pass and claim that they're not designed to discourage armament by free persons.
Police using lawful gun ownership as an excuse for “No Knock” home invasions
by Coach Collins
by Doug Book, editor
Texas courts have ruled that because legally owned firearms represent “a threat of physical violence” to police, officers may ignore the 4th Amendment rights of Texas residents by treating ALL legally issued warrants as “No Knock” warrants, even if the issuing judge has made it clear that officers “...must knock on the door and announce their identity and purpose before attempting a forcible entry.”
In August of 2006, police in Collin County, Texas obtained a warrant to search the home of John Quinn based on information that Quinn’s son might be keeping a controlled substance on the premises. Although the warrant “...did not authorize police to enter the residence without knocking and announcing their entry,” the County SWAT Team broke through Quinn’s door unannounced, “...based solely on the suspicion that there were firearms in the Quinn household.” Not aware of who had broken into his home, the suddenly awakened Quinn was shot by officers as he grabbed a nearby gun for the purpose of defending his life, family and property. All firearms in the home were legally owned by Quinn. Police discovered less than 1 gm of cocaine on the premises.
When Quinn took the Collin County SWAT Team to court for ignoring the terms of the search warrant by turning it into a “No Knock” warrant, the court ruled that “...because police had information that guns were present at the residence, they were justified in making a forced and unannounced invasion into Quinn’s home.” In short, a judge decided John Quinn represented a criminal danger based upon the legal exercise of his 2nd amendment rights.
The Rutherford Institute has petitioned the Supreme Court to hear the Quinn case, writing to the Court that:
“...in the absence of any evidence of actual danger to police, the legal possession of a firearm, as guaranteed by the Second Amendment, is not sufficient to justify allowing police to override the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unannounced “no-knock” home invasions when executing warrants.”
The Supreme Court has ruled on a number of occasions that law enforcement may NOT look upon the free exercise of constitutionally protected rights as an inference of guilt. For example, police may NOT presume that because an individual asserts his right to remain silent or speak with an attorney, he is deserving of additional suspicion of guilt.
Should Americans who exercise their God given, constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms be refused the 4th Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures? The suggestion by law enforcement, courts or lawmakers that the exercise of one constitutionally protected right should somehow render an American ineligible for the free exercise of—or protection guaranteed by—another right is despicable, disgraceful and a thoroughly unconstitutional assault on each of us.
Law enforcement has been given the “legal” authority to view Texas gun owners as potential criminals and to treat them accordingly. Every armed Texan is therefore presumed guilty until proven innocent. Does this mean police may legally gun down the holder of a Concealed Carry license on sight, based on the belief that being armed makes such a person likely to kill an officer?
Courts have dramatically weakened our 4th Amendment protections during the past several decades. If this trend is not reversed, open warfare will eventually become the only means of reclaiming lost liberty.
Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
Additional reading:
http://www.examiner.com/article/government-violations-of-4th-amendment-tsa-airport-procedures
And another thing I hear all the time now from those who profess to be gun owning Conservatives is, I have no objections to a law forbidding those with mental problems from buying guns.” Well, you can bet the farm that when and where they pass a law like that, everyone except their allies[ the police] will suddenly be found to have mental problems. Whether they actual have them [mental problems] or not.
*
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.