New York’s new gun-control law, the so-called SAFE Act, largely survived its first federal-court challenge on this past Tuesday. The more than 1,140 New Yorkers it’s made felons will remain so. But even the testimony of the state’s own expert witness failed to show that the law will cut crime.
The judge in this case is William M. Skretny, chief federal judge for the Western District of New York. His decision upheld the state’s gun-registration requirements and ban on assault weapons, but he rejected the seven-round limit for magazines, deeming it arbitrary.
Of course that isn’t the factor this judge should be considering in the first place. His boss, the US Supreme Court, has held that the 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual liberty, no more and no less than the First, Fourth, and most of the rest do.
The germane consideration is this:
Also, regarding Justice Breyer’s proposal of a “judge-empowering ‘interest-balancing inquiry,’” the Court states, “We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding ‘interest-balancing’ approach.”
Which is, of course, exactly what this hack judge then proceeded to do.
I think this will eventually be overturned. But I will take a while. Maybe a long while.
Hopefully an appeals court will be more careful with the evidence. Courts should prevent people from exercising “fundamental rights” only when there is clear evidence that restrictions actually benefit public safety.
And in most caser, not even then. Those that trade liberty for safety….rmember?