Judge Upholds Most of New York's New Gun Rules
But strikes down odd "seven-bullet" rule
A federal judge on Tuesday upheld most of New York's new gun control law, rejecting arguments that its bans on large-capacity magazines and the sale of some semi-automatic rifles violate Second Amendment rights.
Judge William Skretny in Buffalo concluded those provisions are constitutional because they're related to achieving an "important governmental interest" in public safety. Those two features make guns more lethal, he wrote, citing testimony submitted in the case.
The law "applies only to a subset of firearms with characteristics New York state has determined to be particularly dangerous and unnecessary for self-defense," Skretny wrote. "It does not totally disarm New York's citizens, and it does not meaningfully jeopardize their right to self-defense."
Skretny upheld the ban on magazines that hold more than 10 bullets, but he struck down a restriction on gun owners loading more than seven bullets in legal 10-round magazines. He said that appears to be "an arbitrary number."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
A judge pretends that the constitution doesn't say what it obviously says. Stop the presses!
-jcr
This is the abridged constitution. The unabridged version has a little extra in it. "the right of the people to keep and bear arms that are relational to what the government feels is safe enough for the people shall not be infringed." I think the thing that disgusts me the most is how the judge used "government interest". Cause the government apparently isn't accountable to us anymore.