Eric Schneiderman on Heller

mrreynolds · July 8th, 2008, 12:24 PM

Quote:

(I can't find his earlier statement that a pro-RKBA decision would affect his ability to pass his bills in NY.)

As the Co-chair of State Legislators Against Illegal Guns (SLAIG), a national organization of state lawmakers working to prevent the proliferation of illegal guns, I believe states have the right to regulate public safety through reasonable gun laws. While I disagree strongly with the court’s reasoning, I am confident that the decision does not contradict that belief.

While the Court struck down the District of Columbia’s total ban on handguns or any operable firearms in private homes, Section III of the decision makes it clear that the right to bear arms is not unlimited.
Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, states:

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose… For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues.

…nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.26

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms…the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”

New York’s gun laws, including those that I worked to enact in 2000 banning assault weapons, requiring trigger locks, establishing a ballistics database for handguns and requiring background checks for firearm sales at flea markets and gun show, all fall within the limits that the Court found to be acceptable under the Second Amendment. They will remain in force, and all New Yorkers are safer as a result.
New Yorkers Against Gun Violence has also stated that today’s Supreme Court decision should encourage law abiding gun control advocates to continue to fight for strong gun laws to save lives.

Moreover, the efforts of my colleagues and I, through Legislators Against Illegal Guns, to rein in the 1 percent of gun dealers who supply over half the guns used in crimes, clearly falls within the scope of “conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms”.

SLAIG is founded on the notion that there are common sense solutions for protecting public safety in the face of a flood of illegal guns, and that such solutions can cut across regional and partisan lines. Perhaps by putting to bed the specious notion that government is trying to take guns away from law abiding citizens, this decision will help to refocus public attention on the much more real and urgent problem of how to get guns out of the hands of criminals.

ARTICLE

obxned · July 8th, 2008, 12:33 PM

This is just a variation of the same old song. He needs to pull his head out of his place of no solar radiation and check out the crime rate in New York City. Is this guy truely stupid enough to think criminals give a crap about these gun laws?

lance22 · July 8th, 2008, 03:15 PM

What pack of deliberate lies.

Eric Schneiderman (anti) wrote:

Quote:

New York’s gun laws, including those that I worked to enact in 2000 banning assault weapons, requiring trigger locks, establishing a ballistics database for handguns and requiring background checks for firearm sales at flea markets and gun show, all fall within the limits that the Court found to be acceptable under the Second Amendment.

But, two quotes from the SCOTUS ruling say:

3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment.

And ...

Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.

Thus the SCOTUS rules that trigger-lock laws violate the 2A.

Eric Schneiderman (anti) wrote:

Quote:

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms…the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.”

I'm guessing he says this to justify the semi-auto ban which he is pushing for.

But, the SCOTUS ruled the following in regard to "in common use at the time"

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

Summary: (1) The SCOTUS ruled that gun locks violate "keep" and "bear" by forcing a state of unreadiness. (2) Modern firearms are protected by the 2A in the same way that modern communications are protected by the 1A. A caveat was thrown in about "dangerous and unusual" but it does not undo the fact that "in current use at the time" means "in current use in OUR time".

Eric Schneiderman (anti) is making a number of leaps when he comments about private sales (flea markets), ballistics databases et all. Where in the SCOTUS ruling are these addressed? I hate to call anyone a liar but Schneiderman seems like he's lying through his teeth. In the case of gun locks he's denying something that is twice CLEARLY stated, and in the case of private sales / databases he clearly states something that the SCOTUS never said. Where is he getting his information?

Edited: I sent Eric an email, using the link on his website. I asked him why he can't tell the truth regarding the SCOTUS decision.

Contact Eric

kazzaerexys · July 8th, 2008, 04:00 PM

Does the NY trigger lock requirement mandate use of the lock, or just mandate that you have one for the gun? In Maryland I have to shell out $20 for a "lock" on any gun I buy that doesn't have an internal locking mechanism, but there is no legal requirement that I ever put it on the gun.

So, yeah, it can be legal (so far) to make people buy a lock; it was only the unusability required by the storage provision of the D.C. law that Scalia was referring to.

July 8th, 2008, 12:33 PM	#2
obxned Distinguished Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: OBX, NC Posts: 1,736	This is just a variation of the same old song. He needs to pull his head out of his place of no solar radiation and check out the crime rate in New York City. Is this guy truely stupid enough to think criminals give a crap about these gun laws? __________________ http://www.obxammo.com/ There is only one gun law in this country, the 2nd Amendment. All else is bureaucratic nonsense that I choose to comply with or not at my discretion. When governments make laws, they must consider the unintended consequences.

July 8th, 2008, 04:00 PM	#4
kazzaerexys Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Maryland Posts: 919	Does the NY trigger lock requirement mandate use of the lock, or just mandate that you have one for the gun? In Maryland I have to shell out $20 for a "lock" on any gun I buy that doesn't have an internal locking mechanism, but there is no legal requirement that I ever put it on the gun. So, yeah, it can be legal (so far) to make people buy a lock; it was only the unusability required by the storage provision of the D.C. law that Scalia was referring to. __________________ “What is a moderate interpretation of [the Constitution]? Halfway between what it says and [...] what you want it to say?” —Justice Antonin Scalia

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode