Despite Upholding SAFE Act, Federal Court Inadvertently Admits It Will Never Stop Gun Crimes

New York State Governor Cuomo boasted that “common sense prevailed” when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that New York’s SAFE Act and laws in Connecticut do not infringe on the Second Amendment. However, common sense was actually written into the decision– evidencing the reality that the anti-gun law could never stop criminals from obtaining guns illegally.

In yesterday’s decision, a panel of federal judges ruled that a provision to limit gun owners to loading no more than seven rounds in their magazines is still invalid.

In the written opinion, the court stated that in regards to the seven round limit, “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 ten rounds with only the permissible seven.”

In short, criminals aren’t going to get to their eighth bullet, stop and say, ‘wait a minute, the SAFE Act says I can’t load this one.’

But isn’t that then applicable to the entire law?

The court goes on to contend that “the mere possibility of criminal disregard of the laws does not foreclose an attempt by the state to enact firearm regulations.”

However, if this was the case, the argument to strike down the seven round provision would also be invalid.  Yet this line of reasoning has consistently been held in courts. In each court case the seven round limit has been struck down.

The fact remains, guns will not be kept out of the hands of people who can not legally obtain them with the SAFE Act. The state certainly hasn’t provided evidence that it will.

Criminals intent on killing people, whether singularly or in a mass event, will never pay attention to the SAFE Act.  It is a feel good effort, nothing more.

That said, what does it say when a group of judges consistently overrule the Constitution of the United States?  It is a reminder that Americans, particularly New Yorkers, need to cling ‘bitterly’ to their Second Amendment right to protect themselves – not to hunt dear, but to protect themselves from a rogue government.

Viết một bình luận