ALBANY -- A state judge has ruled that New York's 2013 gun control law is constitutional because there is no "absolute" right to own a firearm.

The activist who lost the decision promised to appeal what he sees as a state law that infringes on the right to bear arms under the U.S. Constitution.

Acting Supreme Court Justice Thomas McNamara cited a civil rights law that said the U.S. Constitution's reference to the right to bear arms "is not absolute and may be limited by reasonable governmental restrictions . . . the right is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."

The judge cited established laws against possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill and others that prohibit carrying firearms on school grounds.

McNamara said Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo's Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement Act -- or SAFE Act -- falls into this category. The law requires rifles patterned after military-style assault rifles be registered, bans the sale of new assault-type rifles, and requires more background checks and additional filings for hand guns and ammunition.

State Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman called the law a "strong set of procedures" to protect New Yorkers form gun violence.

"New Yorkers deserve to live in a state with a strong set of procedures in place to protect them from gun violence," Schneiderman said. He said the gun law protects people from violence "without infringing on the rights of responsible gun owners."

Activist Robert Schulz of Warren County, who isn't a lawyer, said he will appeal his loss to the state's highest court, the Court of Appeals.

"The U.S. Supreme Court said that it is unconstitutional to ban guns that are in common use," Schulz said in an interview. "Rifles, pistols and shotguns that are banned in this case are in common use . . . they cannot be banned."

State officials had estimated there were already 1 million firearms often referred to as assault weapons in New York when the law was passed.

I hope he and everyone in his bloodline get aids and cancer.

+87.....

New York will NEVER comply with a SCOTUS ruling it disagrees with.  We will secede and join Canada before they accept a ruling acknowledging firearms ownership is a right with limited  (very) restrictions.

 

I hope they don't merge this case with the NYSRPA and Tresmond suits.

Scalia can't be too pleased with the way Skretney shat all over the Heller/McDonald decisions.  It also sets a precedent where states can blatantly violate the US Constitution by bundling dozens of unconstitutional laws together.  Maybe TX should copy the SAFE act verbatim and replace all the gun language with illegal aliens, voter ID, abortion, prayer in schools, etc.

They have already ignored the ruling from last fall. The one that said a state can not ban a "standard" ammunition feeding device. Stating the AR15 was issued with a 30 round magazine.  That didn't even get any press , well we all talked about it. I'll see if I can find it again.

I did find this,,kinda funny. http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/01/foghorn/ny-legal-50-round-ar-15-magazine-new-fab-defense/

Why can't they? Who will stop them?

Reminds me of President Jackson, "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it."

The problem is NY will ignore any scotus ruling unless it is a direct challenge to NYs laws and scotus says specifically that NY laws are no good.

So even if Cali gets a favorable ruling...NY will ignore it...and since it is all but impossible to get a case to scotus... we are screwed.

Exactly- a spurious quote perhaps but these are strange lawless times we live in.

I feel the same. SCOTUS just refuses to rule on the 2nd. As a absolute right .

FUCK.

THE.

KING.

Hey ericcc , throw these fuckers in jail when they commit a crime with a firearm, instead of letting these liberal judges give these pos's a pass. That's  how you protect New Yorkers from gun violence, you stupid mother fucker

No right to own a firearm?  Lol fuck off.

Maybe its time for judges not to have life time appointments either.

"New Yorkers deserve to live in a state with a strong set of procedures in place to protect them from gun violence," Schneiderman said. He said the gun law protects people from violence "without infringing on the rights of responsible gun owners."

Why does not some reporter with balls come right out and ask..."Mr. Schneiderman, how many homicides in NYS were committed with an "assault rifle" in the last ten years, and how many with edged or blunt weapons"...have the answer ready when he says he doesn't know (the disparity is HUGE), then ask "how does banning "assault weapons" make people safer, when it seems like banning knives and blunt objects would make a whole lot more sense?"

But no one ever does....

I don't believe in appointed judges either, they should be voted and have term limits, just like all other politicians should have term limits.

That shit will never happen though.

Please  NYS has a long history of outright ignoring federal rulings as long as possible

Because the media is all about the propaganda and pushing the agenda.

Facts?Who gives a fucking shit about the facts.Rifles are used in less murders than hands and feet or knives,but none of the scum care about the facts at all.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/tables/20tabledatadecpdf/table_20_murder_by_state_types_of_weapons_2012.xls

I'm not one who believes in the "incorporation doctrine" of the Constitution. The Constitution is supposed to apply to the federal government. Applying it to the states has nationalized our government into an all-ruling leviathan. Relying on a far away government 's politically appointed judges to overturn a state government's legislation has many, many drawbacks. We all want SCOTUS to overturn the SAFE Act because it is vile, but when SCOTUS intrudes on other state laws we like, we scream and shout. The Heller decision isn't that great as it consecrates "reasonable" infringements of the right to keep and bear arms. The absoluteness of that right has thereby been further diminished by adding a wildly interpretive aspect to a simple sentence. Natural rights existed before the Constitution, and accrue to each individual in every state - withstanding any federal or states' political assault. NYS' Constitution does not contain a RTLBA Amendment like almost all other states, but does have a Civil Rights Law that states that it "cannot" be infringed. Although CT's does - you see where that got them. This moronic Unsafe Act has to be fought in the state courts and through local and state elections.  Either that, or just wait until the economy implodes and the state becomes a zombie free zone.

It is an interesting comment.  Yes the 14th Amendment has had its downside but on the flip-site, could you imagine what life would be like today if the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states.  If we think New York State is bad already, try to imagine what it would be like if there were no protections against warrantless searches and free speech to name a few.  Right off the bat this state would outlaw any speech it disagrees with and police would be kicking in doors of anyone suspected of challenging the "Progressive" movement.  Every court case that New York City has lost on a violation of the Bill of Rights would still be on the books.  In fact, I think the biggest problem with the 14th Amendment is that true incorporation via "Privileges or Immunities" was shot down in 1873 by the Slaughter-House Cases and we are now stuck with a Hodge-podge of incorporated rights through the "Due Process" clause.  It is interesting to note that the 3rd Amendment is only incorporated against the states in the Second Circuit since 1979.  In theory, states everywhere else could require quartering of their National Guard and/or State Militias without violating the 3rd Amendment since it is not incorporated anywhere else.





 

By the same logic the courts could use the same argument to ban all handguns, which are used in 90% of all gun related crimes. The judge's ruling doesn't pass the sniff test.

Don't you worry, they'll get along to that soon enough.  

I'm beyond Wikipedia my good Penguin. The 14th was ratified at the point of a bayonet, with the "boot on the neck" consent of the southern states who were under the Reconstruction Act. It was so nasty that Ohio and New Jersey rescinded their affirmative votes.

That said, why would due process be listed separately in the 14th amendment? It’s in the 5th Amendment already, and is certainty fundamental, so it would already be incorporated into the 14th via the due process clause and selective incorporation. Why didn't it say "rights"? You know that, unlike today, back then the politicians agonized over individual words.  The 14th was meant to secure common law rights - contractual rights, if you will I'm sure you're familiar with the Slaughter House case. I don't consider my RTKBA to be a contractual right with the government as the other party relying on the protection of the SCOTUS or Congress.