Second Circuit Upholds Most of NY SAFE Act and CT Ban

B

Bartholomew Roberts

Moderator
http://law-policy.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/NYSRAP-vs-Cuomo-OPINION-10192015.pdf

Short version: 57 page decision upholds most of the NY Safe Act and CT Bans. The provision on load limits in 10rd magazines does not survive scrutiny in NY and the ban on the Remington 7615 in CT is held to be unconstitutional. The Second Circuit affirms the ban on magazines holding more than 10rds and all semi-autos however.

Of interest, SCOTUS had already been petitioned to hear a similar case regarding the constitutionality of semi-auto bans; but had not yet agreed to hear the case. Apparently the Second Circuit decided to avoid the rush and give their opinion before SCOTUS indicated whether they would take up the subject.

Just did a fast skim of the decision and it is even worse than it sounds. The only reason Second Circuit overturned the parts they did was because neither state offered ANY evidence in support of those provisions and Second Circuit couldn't very well claim they were applying "heightened scrutiny" and then fail to overturn a law that had no evidence in support. They did make it abundantly clear though that if any future law went so far as to offer evidence in support of those provisions, they would probably support it too.
 
Last edited:
So we did not ascend to paradise on the angelic wings of the Lord Scalia?

I said it from the get-go that 'reasonable restrictions' were a terrible weakness and in fact a justification for bans.

Bart - I, obviously, didn't read this yet. Does it discuss the mental health provisions and why they are legit in their view?
 
Glenn E. Meyer said:
I said it from the get-go that 'reasonable restrictions' were a terrible weakness and in fact a justification for bans.
Click to expand...
+1. Also—at least at first glance—this court decision backs up my assertion that 10rd (or whatever) mag capacity limitations are best challenged at the ballot box rather than in the courtroom.

I find that many of our arguments against such limits are weaker than we think, or sometimes even inherently self-contradictory.
 
It is the same old two-step used in every negative Second Amendment decision thus far.

The court assumed that the banned firearms and banned magazines were protected by the Second Amendment. They then found that banning only certain semi-auto firearms and magazines with more than 10 rounds did not infringe on the "core right" protected by the Second Amendment because you still had some semi-auto firearms and detachable magazines of 10 rounds or less. Then they applied "heightened scrutiny" which in this case appears to have been "Did the government offer any evidence in support of this provision of the law? If yes, then heightened scrutiny met. If no, then that provision overturned."

Glen E. Meyer said:
I said it from the get-go that 'reasonable restrictions' were a terrible weakness and in fact a justification for bans.
Click to expand...

There was no other way that we were going to get an individual rights decision that I can see in Heller, weakness or not. First, the Heller case was narrowly tailored to a specific set of circumstances in order to prevent broadly overturning huge swaths of Federal law. In this respect it was following the civil rights strategy of 1950's integration efforts.

Second, there isn't a court system in the country that is funded or staffed to a level that even 50% of those who are entitled to a speedy trial can receive one. A narrow ruling on Heller without the "presumptively reasonable restrictions" language has the likely effect of creating a tsunami of run of the mill criminals protesting their convictions on Second Amendment grounds. Many of those cases would have extremely unattractive plaintiffs that are likely to create bad precedent in how that individual right is interpreted.

That presumptively reasonable restriction language gives the lower courts an easy out to deal with those challenges - and to the extent it discourages actual legal scholarship by courts by giving them a lazy solution to their docket, it actually helps us in the long run. In this case, the court did not consider the banned weapons to be "dangerous or unusual" (one of the presumptively reasonable restrictions), so it really had no effect on the outcome other than the court noted that the language clearly indicates some restrictions are OK right before it goes on to bash SCOTUS for not giving any guidance on determining which restrictions are OK.

Honestly, I'd have much preferred if many of the courts doing the two-step analysis and applying it to laws would have just cited Scalia's "presumptively reasonable" language and sent it on down the line. Every time that does happen, it at least leaves that decision open to attack from a wide variety of angles.

The good news from this decision is that it was a Motion for Summary Judgment. As a result, the Second Circuit has identified a number of factual issues that might be important to future Second Amendment litigation and we have an idea of what kind of information is necessary to shape court opinion.
 
Ultimately, then, neither the 1 Supreme Court’s categories nor
2 the evidence in the record cleanly resolves the question of whether
3 semiautomatic assault weapons and large‐capacity magazines are
4 “typically possessed by law‐abiding citizens for lawful purposes.”69
5 Confronting this record, Chief Judge Skretny reasonably found that
6 reliable empirical evidence of lawful possession for lawful purposes
7 was “elusive,”70 beyond ownership statistics.71 We agree.
Click to expand...
These judges were unable to determine if "assault weapons" were typically possessed for lawful purposes???
 
These judges were unable to determine if "assault weapons" were typically possessed for lawful purposes???
Click to expand...

No, I don't think that's what they said. I think they are taking the same dodge SCOTUS took in the Miller case (NFA 34).

Essentially they are saying that "no evidence was presented", which is slightly different in legalese, but essentially the same in effect as "we could not determine.."

It would seem a simple question to me, using established definition of semi automatic assault weapon (despite my personal disgust and objections to the term), take the sales numbers of these guns, subtract the numbers of these guns recovered from crimes, and presto, the remainder are lawfully possessed or possessed for lawful purposes.

Simple arithmetic that even a Judge could do. If they chose to.

But they don't have to choose to, and nothing requires them to. Determining what is or isn't reality is not their concern, or their job. What is their job is to rule on what is brought before them.

If you don't present what they consider proof, of something, they don't have to consider it. They might, probably they should, but they don't have to.
 
I'm speculating; but I think one of the reasons they found the evidence "elusive" is that this was a motion for summary judgment. In order for that motion to be granted, the judge must determine (or the parties must agree) that there is no dispute as to material facts affecting the case.

The thing is, there is clearly a dispute as to the material facts behind this case. In that situation, the proper thing for the judge to do is to interpret the facts in the light most favorable to the Plaintiffs to see if there is an issue as a matter of law that would allow summary judgment. I'm having a difficult time seeing how the Second Circuit or the lower court did that in this case.

I'm not sure if the Plaintiffs stipulated to facts that included cites to Violence Policy Center for strategic reasons or if the judge found there was no material fact dispute over the objection of the Plaintiffs or what; but it seems to me that there is a material fact issue and that it was not viewed in the light most favorably to the Plaintiff, the judges' decision in the matter notwithstanding.

Accordingly, in the opinion the Second Circuit acknowledges several times that the Plaintiff and Defendant have different views of key issues that would affect the analysis used by the Second Circuit in determining what type of scrutiny applies. The Second Circuit even appears to be arguing at times that it is quite willing to be convinced that the weapons are not in common use either.
 
Bartholomew Roberts said:
Second, there isn't a court system in the country that is funded or staffed to a level that even 50% of those who are entitled to a speedy trial can receive one. A narrow ruling on Heller without the "presumptively reasonable restrictions" language has the likely effect of creating a tsunami of run of the mill criminals protesting their convictions on Second Amendment grounds. Many of those cases would have extremely unattractive plaintiffs that are likely to create bad precedent in how that individual right is interpreted.

That presumptively reasonable restriction language gives the lower courts an easy out to deal with those challenges - and to the extent it discourages actual legal scholarship by courts by giving them a lazy solution to their docket, it actually helps us in the long run. In this case, the court did not consider the banned weapons to be "dangerous or unusual" (one of the presumptively reasonable restrictions), so it really had no effect on the outcome other than the court noted that the language clearly indicates some restrictions are OK right before it goes on to bash SCOTUS for not giving any guidance on determining which restrictions are OK.
Click to expand...

I have also said since Heller that Mr. Justice Scalia didn't do us any favors with that "presumptively legal" language. The problem is, ever since then the lower courts have been cheerfully misinterpreting it.

Just as the lower courts (many of them, anyway) try to limit the entire scope of the 2A to "in the home" on the basis that Heller only addressed in the home, they also get lazy and proceed on the basis that, since Scalia said all existing gun restrictions are "presumptively" legal, they pretend that he actually said they are legal.

What he was actually saying was, "We weren't asked about those other laws today, so we won't talk about them today. We'll presume they're legal until they have their own day in court." And that would be a proper way to proceed, except that the lower court judges now play as if all those other laws have already HAD their day in court, and have been ruled legal by the Supreme Court. And that's just not what actually happened.
 
What he was actually saying was, "We weren't asked about those other laws today, so we won't talk about them today. We'll presume they're legal until they have their own day in court." And that would be a proper way to proceed, except that the lower court judges now play as if all those other laws have already HAD their day in court, and have been ruled legal by the Supreme Court. And that's just not what actually happened.
Click to expand...

The thing is, if the courts were going to rule against the Second Amendment anyway, that is not a bad result. It leaves a ruling that is easy to challenge and it discards a lot of bad plaintiffs that might otherwise be cluttering up the scene with bad precedent.

To the extent a court looks at that language dispassionately and decides "Eh, looks like the safe thing to do is deny this challenge and quote that part", it is bad for us. But my gut feeling is that many of the courts quoting that language had their minds made up and are looking for an easy way to justify it. Scalia gave them easy language to justify the decision without ever building a good base of legal reasoning that would stand up under scrutiny.
 
Bartholomew Roberts said:
To the extent a court looks at that language dispassionately and decides "Eh, looks like the safe thing to do is deny this challenge and quote that part", it is bad for us. But my gut feeling is that many of the courts quoting that language had their minds made up and are looking for an easy way to justify it. Scalia gave them easy language to justify the decision without ever building a good base of legal reasoning that would stand up under scrutiny.
Click to expand...
Agreed.

A few months back I attended a lecture by the president of the NY State Rifle and Pistol Association (I think that was the correct name of the group). His take back then was that the circuit court's ruling was going to be appealed regardless of which side prevailed. I think it's fair to say that just about everyone expected that the ruling would be in favor of the states, and it would not surprise me if both NY and CT plaintiffs have had their appeals 90 percent drafted already. All they need to do is fill in the blanks from the circuit court's ruling and BAM!

I expect to see appeals filed by both plaintiffs in a very short time.
 
Last edited:
Second Court of upholds most of SAFE Act and CT Ban

The Court is in error again. There is no such thing as Judicial Supremacy, under our Constitution.
That doesn't matter now.
At some point perhaps People will get angry enough to remove these Activist Judges off the Court.
Ny and Cn Citizens will jsut have to gird themselves and recognize the Constitution and not accept these illegal Laws and Judges.
Honorable citizens in these states and others are already under persecution and many prosecuted for enjoying our Rights protected from Government by our Constitution.
The price of freedom is such.
Cristi as Governor could do something about it and get these laws offf Cn books.
He is showing his stripes by not defending our Constitution and Citizens.
No way in hades, he will be elected to President.
The anti freedom, anti Constitution, and Americans are succeeding in polarizing America, extremly, with their persecution and denial of our Rights.
To all Nyers and Conn Citizens keep your resolve. Elect County Sheriffs and local Police an Mayors that are Patriots and ostracize an minimize the Socialists/Communist.
They come into a Restaurant or business leave.
Don't sell to them or do any business with them. Don't be friends with them. Ask the clubs etc you are. Members in to ask them to resign.
Raise petitions to cut their pay and perks and limit their power and to recall them.
They are waring on our Rights and Constitution and our freedoms.
They like Victims and Citizens who cannot resist.
 
Tinbucket said:
Cristi as Governor could do something about it and get these laws offf Cn books.
Click to expand...


Umm, Christie is Governor of New Jersey.

As a Governor he cannot "Do Something" without the help of the State Legislators to get "laws off the books". A governor is not a dictator and cannot just remove laws or enact laws as he/she sees fit.
 
Last edited:
when Christie was a legislator in the New Jersey Legislature he was pro gun control and co sponsored gun control bills.
 
heyjoe said:
when Christie was a legislator in the New Jersey Legislature he was pro gun control and co sponsored gun control bills.
Click to expand...
What does that have to do with the New York and Connecticut anti-gun laws, and the circuit court decision? New Jersey is not part of this discussion.
 
Tinbucket said:
The Court is in error again. There is no such thing as Judicial Supremacy, under our Constitution.
That doesn't matter now.
At some point perhaps People will get angry enough to remove these Activist Judges off the Court.
Ny and Cn Citizens will jsut have to gird themselves and recognize the Constitution and not accept these illegal Laws and Judges.
Click to expand...
Be careful, that blade cuts both ways. Many of the civil liberties we enjoy are there because of so-called "activist judges".
Tinbucket said:
Cristi as Governor could do something about it and get these laws offf Cn books.
Click to expand...
For the record, the current governor of CT (not Cn), and the one who signed the new CT gun laws, is Dannel Malloy.
 
Second Circuit Court upholds most of NY SAFE Act and CT Ban

I should not have thrown Cristi in there. He is the same problem of NJ Citizens, I should have explained if i was going to expand it.
He's running for President all the while being a closet liberal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top