Cuomo went on suggest the case validated a simple, fundamental truth about gun control: that “it is possible to have strong laws that keep our communities safe, while at the same time respecting the rights of law-abiding gun owners”.
“New York has failed to present evidence that the mere existence of this load limit will convince any would-be malefactors to load magazines capable of holding 10 rounds with only the permissible seven”, the panel said.
Cuomo has argued the seven-bullet limit would allow for police or others to stop a gunman in a public shooting as the shooter reloaded.
Mary A. VanTassel, who co-owns VanTassel’s Gunsmithing on Route 37 in Evans Mills with husband Dennis J., said while she believes a few provisions in the SAFE Act are too extreme, the law includes provisions that she believes will help keep people safe.
The U.S Court of Appeals has ruled that the core provisions of the New York SAFE Act that prohibit the possession of semi-automatic “assault weapons” and large-capacity magazines do not violate the second amendment.
The New York State Rifle and Pistol Association announced plans on Monday to appeal the ruling.
“Look at what’s going on in Albany, in Schenectady, in Rochester, in New York City and in parts of Long Island”, King said in an interview.
Pat Tuz with New Yorkers Against Gun Violence supports the SAFE Act.
The decision ruled on gun control measure in New York and Connecticut after the December 2012 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, which left 20 first-graders and six adults dead. He said hunters and sportsmen, in particular, have been outraged by the SAFE Act. But gun rights advocates have decried the law, which they say does nothing to address the majority of gun crimes and is an unconstitutional infringement on their liberties. The judges also found that the Constitution protects only weapons “in common use… for law purposes like self-defense”.
The court reasoned the act does not ban all guns and does not make it hard for a homeowner to obtain a weapon to defend himself and his family.
The 2nd Circuit did reverse Skretny on one provision, ruling that the SAFE Act’s misspelled reference to banned weapons with a barrel that could accommodate a “muzzle break” – a misspelling of the anti-recoil “brake” device – was not enough to invalidate the plain intent of the language.