Today's Hearing in Federal Court
Today our Motion for Preliminary Injunction, combined for now with those of the other three plaintiff groups, was heard by Judge Stephen McGlynn. We had a solid day and had a good look at what the State will advance to justify their Magazine Limit and "Assault Weapon" ban in Federal Court.
The State's effort rests on two shaky pillars: a narrow definition of "in common use," and interest balancing specifically disallowed under the NYSRPA v Bruen case last summer. Generally, the State's position is this (our comments in parentheses):
- Mass murder is bad (we agree)
- Lots of mass shootings involve "assault weapons." (no, they don't)
- Because violent offenders misuse (with astonishing infrequency) "assault weapons," then the law-abiding people should not have them. (Um.... no).
- Because Congress banned "assault weapons" in 1994, and mass shootings then went down (no, they didn't deviate from the trend), there is precedent for banning these firearms. (no, the relevant period is pre-14th amendment)
The State completely ignored Bruen and focused on Heller with respect to "in common use." They attempted to limit lawful use to self defense only. That is not going to fly constitutionally after Bruen.
Team Gun Rights kept the focus on lawful use and the necessity of the State to prove our protected activity is not protected. Good luck with that.
The Judge began by stating his mind is not made up. His questions were much more pointed towards the defendants, though. He concluded with this (paraphrasing):
"We see the victims and perpetrators and all want to see reduction of mass shooter crime, but from where I sit, I think we need to look at more than just the gun, but what are troubled teens doing, medicines taken, red flags...."
It is apparent that he does not have a decision written, and given his thoughtfulness and the "gun fluent" nature of his questions, we expect a ruling on the Motion for Preliminary Injunction in the next 2-4 weeks.
