If you don’t want to get your dander-up, don’t. Don’t read the “legal arguments” from Buffalo Federal District Judge William M. Skretny, who ruled yesterday that New York’s SAFE Act is constitutional (except for the bit about only being able to load seven bullets). Nor do I recommend you read the New York Daily News’ editorial on the decision The gun nuts lose again. Or Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America’s celebratory press release. But if you can keep your cool while seeing how the light of liberty flickers in The Land of the Free click here to read the full ruling (courtesy our pals at The New York Times) or make the jump for excerpts from his 54-page trampling of the United States Constitution’s Second Amendment . . .
In a 54-page ruling, Judge Skretny struck down a well-known but troubled portion of the law, which prohibited gun owners from loading more than seven rounds into a magazine. He called the limit “an arbitrary restriction” that violated the Second Amendment.
But, saying that “whether regulating firearms is wise or warranted is not a judicial question; it is a political one,” he found that Mr. Cuomo and lawmakers had acted within their bounds when they drafted the gun laws, and specifically cited the Bushmaster rifle and 30-round magazine used in the Newtown shooting.
“Of course, this is only one incident,” Judge Skretny wrote. “But it is nonetheless illustrative. Studies and data support New York’s view that assault weapons are often used to devastating effect in mass shootings.”
He said that the gun law “applies only to a subset of firearms with characteristics New York State has determined to be particularly dangerous and unnecessary for self-defense; it does not totally disarm New York’s citizens; and it does not meaningfully jeopardize their right to self-defense.”
I don’t think “meaningfully” means what Judge Skretny thinks it means.
Let’s hope the U.S. Supreme Court weighs in on this one, perhaps citing Miller’s definition of weapons in “common use.” Then again, we should be careful what we wish for. If a Supreme pegs it before the next ruling – replaced by an Obamanaut – it might all be for naught. Meanwhile, civil disobedience? Ruby Ridge? Watch this space . . .