assault weapons
(AP Photo/Damian Dovarganes)

Attorneys representing two New York state residents challenging the state’s ban on so-called “assault weapons” have filed a memorandum in support of their earlier motion for summary judgment.

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) are supporting the case, known as Lane v. Rocah. The case challenges the ban on so-called “assault weapons” in New York state. This motion also opposes a cross-motion from the defendants for summary judgment. Plaintiffs are represented by attorneys Adam Kraut at the Second Amendment Foundation in Bellevue, Wash., Cody J. Wisniewski in Las Vegas, and Nicholas J. Rotsko at FLUET in Tysons, Va. The memorandum was filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

In their memorandum, SAF attorneys show the state is relying on arguments which are either easily discredited, or essentially nullified by the Supreme Court’s Bruen ruling in 2022 which rejected “interest balancing” in tests of Second Amendment restrictions.

“The state is trying to make arguments which have already been rejected by the Supreme Court,” noted SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “New York’s arguments reflect a stubborn resistance to the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in the 2022 Bruen ruling.”

“New York is arguing that modern semiautomatic rifles are ‘dangerous and unusual,’ merely because they resemble military weapons,” noted SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “Yet, such firearms are in common use across the country for all types of legitimate use, from personal and home defense to competition, hunting and recreational shooting.”

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

32 COMMENTS

  1. What’s funny though is that the weapons the founding fathers talked about didn’t resemble military weapons but actually WERE military weapons.

    • And artillery and warships and all manner of things that go boom. The place we should be discussing weapons regulations is proper storage of high explosives to ensure only the owners property is adversely effected in a catastrophic mishap.

      • Cool, still a lot of state level laws to work on (mine included but other fish to fry first) but great first (second whatever) step.

        • “…but great first (second whatever) step.”

          Indeed, but that is all it is; nice, but not substantial. There is no cost to anyone defying rulings of the SC.

          “The music plays, and everyone must dance.”

            • “Dance or die I guess.”

              Of course. Interim victories are nice, but merely steps. And the game goes on because no one of consequence really wants to see total victory; too many people out of jobs.

              Case in point, there is only one 2A case on the SC docket in the fall term: Garland v. Cargill. Maybe a “victory”, but 2A will remain infringed. The SC deems every word of the constitution to be non-absolute.

  4. RE: “New York is arguing that modern semiautomatic rifles are ‘dangerous and unusual,’ merely because they resemble military weapons,”

    So f-ing what? I see Jeeps, Humvees/Hummers, knives, clothing, tents, surplus stores, etc. that are Military related. Haven’t heard one azzhat make hay out of that so where’s the beef?

    • They are trying to make it up and pass off impossible burgers long enough that they get different judges in the cook-off.

    • The completely ignore that military firearms from wars long past are completely legal to possess, such as the Garand, M1 Carbine, and multiple bolt action rifles and the like from all over the world. How many rifles were brought home after WWI and sportorized to make hunting rifles, contributing the .30-06 becoming one of the most popular hunting rounds of all time. Trench guns are, in a word, pump shotguns. And so forth and so on. The mere classification of a firearm as a “military weapon” is entirely meaningless.

      • The argument put forward that certain guns are “weapons of war”, and “suitable for military use” is a government attempt to present the theme that such weapons have no non-war/non-mil purpose, other than to wage war against the government. Waging war against the government is outdated because no US government would ever be tyrannical; the US has no king, or equivalent. There is no reason for the public to fear the conditions that faced the founders.

          • “Cool so drive thru NFA quick service should not be an issue at all.”

            I foresee a day when the NFA will be modified to overturn the Second Amendment, in all cases except staplers.

            • The English model may have some issues here at least until we sufficiently replace the unruly population of disobedient savages.

  5. I certainly applaud this effort but I don’t think others realize how far my home has gone. NY now requires a background check for every ammunition purchase. It’s not uncommon for me to have to wait three days and go back to pick up ammo I’ve purchased. And, no, I don’t have any criminal record.

  6. Approximately 24.5 Million AR15 rifles in civilian ownership in the U.S. This is not counting AK’s, mini 14’s or other semi auto rifles. That number is “common use” by any definition. Make no mistake, renaming and now calling a semi-auto an “Assault rifle” has nothing to do with gun safety, It’s about gun control and violating rights. This is so simple, but people still believe the crazy idea that banning AR15’s would make us safer? Trouble is, You can’t even educate these morons.

    • “Approximately 24.5 Million AR15 rifles in civilian ownership in the U.S. …That number is “common use” by any definition.”

      As generally understood by the populous, “common use” means virtually “everyone”, has, or does, whatever is under consideration. Or at least “everyone ” one knows.

  9. @SAFEupstateFML
    “Difference seeking differentiation?”

    The US model is slow death; the Brits just hack away at individual rights.

    • I always saw it as they were further along with dehumanizing their expendable population and served as the preview.

      • “I always saw it as they were further along with dehumanizing their expendable population and served as the preview.”

        You got that right.

        • ….well fuck I was hoping for more disagreement there. Time to make some more ammo to make NY’s pending ammo registry more impossible to be useful.

          • Time to make some more ammo to make NY’s pending ammo registry more impossible to be useful.

            MMmmmmmmm. I’m telling.

            • LOL they know, I set up the 30-06 setup for my boss and advertise the fuck out of the local groups and stores that teach the basics as a class. Unless you mean the governor and goons in which case……..hmm still should be too small a fish to fry but have the lawyer ready for something that flagrant.

Comments are closed.