Quoted:
Since both the NY and CT AWB will be in front of the same panel today we'll see which of three options they decide to take:
1) Uphold the 2nd and toss both
2) Vote against the 2nd and allow both
3) Split the baby, toss the NY ban, allow the CT.

Quoted:
What's the earliest we could expect to hear a decision?

Quoted:
Since both the NY and CT AWB will be in front of the same panel today we'll see which of three options they decide to take:
1) Uphold the 2nd and toss both
2) Vote against the 2nd and allow both
3) Split the baby, toss the NY ban, allow the CT.

Quoted:
According to thread at NYFirearms, oral arguments have been presented and decision not expected until late Feb at the earliest.

MARK HAMBLETT, The Connecticut Law Tribune

December 9, 2014    

Standing before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, David Thompson, managing partner of Cooper & Kirk in Washington D.C., said the restrictions do nothing to stem mass shootings and infringe on the right of people to possess guns for their own protection and amusement.

Thompson, noting that 44 states do not have restrictions similar to those in New York and Connecticut, said the bans must fail under the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) and that the question in analyzing the constitutionality of the laws is not whether criminals will still be able to locate illegal weapons and ammunition.

"Under Heller, that's the wrong question," Thompson said. "The question is how law-abiding, responsible citizens are going to use these firearms and magazines."

Thompson asked Judges Jose Cabranes, Raymond Lohier and Christopher Droney to reverse Western District Judge William Skretny's ruling in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Cuomo, and that of U.S. District Judge Alfred Covello of the District of Connecticut in The Connecticut Citizens' Defense League v. Malloy, upholding the statues.

New York Solicitor General Barbara Underwood and Connecticut Assistant Attorney General Maura Murphy Osborne defended their state's respective laws, saying they do not implicate core Second Amendment rights as in Heller, where the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a handgun ban in the District of Columbia.

The Heller court said the Second Amendment protects the right to possess handguns unconnected with service in a militia and to use those firearms for traditionally lawful purposes, such as for self-defense in the home.

In New York, while finding the measure "not constitutionally flawless," Skretny concluded that New York had presented "considerable evidence" that the regulation of so-called assault weapons and large capacity magazines was substantially related to the "state's important interest in public safety."

But Skretny also found three provisions were unconstitutionally vague and he struck down a seven-round limit on guns because "the purported link between the ban and the State's interest is tenuous, strained and unsupported in the record."

Thompson criticized the seven-round limit in New York and a corresponding 10-round capacity limit in Connecticut. He said both states had failed to meet their burden of showing "substantial evidence" that the restrictions will advance the purposes of the statutes, and he insisted that even the states' own expert could not say with certainty that the bans would have the desired effect.

Seeking advantage in the language of Heller, Thompson said weapons such as the popular AR-15, "are typically possessed by people in the home."

When Droney pointed out that the Heller court said that a ban on M-16s was constitutional, Thompson drew a distinction between the two weapons, saying there are over four million AR-15s in circulation, many more than the military-style M-16.

Lohier noted that a number of police chiefs have made the point in affidavits that so-called semi-automatic weapons are "far more able" to penetrate the walls of an apartment and to be more lethal, than an ordinary rifle, a point that Thompson disputed.

Rounds Fired

Underwood told the court "it's the combination" of the weapon and the magazines that the state seeks to limit. "The ability to fire a large number of rounds quickly without reloading" is not "essential to the core of the Second Amendment" she said, and, in fact, restricting certain features of semi-automatic weapons "does not implicate Second Amendment rights at all."

Underwood said the law should be subjected to intermediate scrutiny—scrutiny it easily survives—and that ban on these weapons and the burden is not a severe one. Underwood analogized the restrictions as similar to reasonable "time, place, and manner restrictions" under the First Amendment.

"That's what this is about," she said. "The number of rounds that can be fired without pause to reload."

Underwood said the "pause," the requirement that a person has to reload, might give "the person who has gone berzerk" time to rethink, the victims time to hide, or law enforcement the time to make a move on the shooter.

She also said the legislation was part of an argument that took place over years "to deal with the problem of mass shootings" and it was built on prior legislation and patterned after federal laws.

Osborne said the restrictions easily pass muster under the language of Heller and other precedents. She said a "ban on large-capacity magazines will be especially useful in combatting gun shot victimization" and the bans "have been shown to reduce the presence of these magazines in the gun market over time."

Osborne also defended the ban as a rational response to the "growing militarization of our civilian gun market" in a nation where there are 310 million firearms.

The court took the cases under advisement.

Read more: http://www.ctlawtribune.com/id=1202678530080/Gun-Rights-Advocates-Take-Aim-at-Conn-Law-in-Second-Circuit-Arguments#ixzz3LS9o3nV0

Underwood said the law should be subjected to intermediate—scrutiny it easily survives—and that ban on these weapons and the burden is not a severe one. Underwood analogized the restrictions as similar to reasonable "time, place, and manner restrictions" under the First Amendment.

Quoted:
Also, considering NYS has no 2nd Amendment in the state constitution; wouldn't the Supremacy Clause kick in?