NY SAFE Act Upheld at District Court

Chief U.S. District Judge William M. Skretny ruled today on the constitutionality of New York’s SAFE Act [pdf]. Yet again, the right to keep and bear arms is subject to intermediate, not strict, scrutiny. Citing Justice Breyer’s dissent in the Heller case, the court held that a lower standard applies, saying “these types of restrictions are presumably justified because of the unique ability of firearms to upset and disrupt public order.”

Some of Skretny’s citations are truly bizarre. He falls back on a 1998 ATF study on “sporting purposes” and articles from Mother Jones, of all things. But hey, this is New York, and he’s doing the job he was appointed to do.

Not everything was a loss, however. The 7-round magazine limit was ruled unconstitutional.

The Act, however, is not constitutionally flawless. For reasons articulated below, the seven-round limit is largely an arbitrary restriction that impermissibly infringes on the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment. This Court therefore strikes down that portion of the Act. [p. 6]

He later mentions that standard-capacity magazines are “commonly owned for lawful purposes” and that a requirement limiting the amount of rounds loaded is “more than a ‘marginal, incremental or even appreciable restraint’ on the right to keep and bear arms.”

Regarding the idea that restrictions based on the features of a gun was unworkable, we’re granted this chestnut:

Plaintiffs later argue that the banned features increase the utility for self-defense– which is just another way of saying that the features increase their lethality. (…) There thus can be no serious dispute that the very features that increase a weapon’s utility for self-defense also increase its dangerousness to the public at large.” [p. 31]

(Is “dangerousness” a word? I don’t think that’s a word.)

The one prohibited feature that didn’t pass muster is the ban on muzzle brakes. Because legislators worded them as “breaks.” Yep.

The provision banning pistols which are “versions” of fully-automatic weapons was also found to be unconstitutionally vague. The face-to-face ammunition sale requirement was upheld.

So, now we’re off to the 2nd Circuit.