You are here: / / SAFE Act Restrictions on Ownership of Assault Rifles and Ammunition Feeding...

SAFE Act Restrictions on Ownership of Assault Rifles and Ammunition Feeding Devices Constitutional

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Devine, determined that the restrictions on ownership of assault rifles and ammunition feeding devices in the “SAFE Act” furthered the substantial, compelling, governmental interests in public safety and crime prevention and, therefore, are constitutional:

We will accept, for purposes of discussion, that the SAFE Act substantially burdens the right to keep and bear arms so as to subject it to Second Amendment scrutiny … . We will also assume, although it is debatable, that the weapons and feeding devices addressed by the SAFE Act are not the type of dangerous and exotic weaponry that merit no Second Amendment protection … . The question accordingly becomes whether the challenged provisions survive intermediate scrutiny, namely, whether they “bear[] a substantial relationship to the achievement of an important governmental objective” … .

With regard to the objective pursued, “New York has substantial, indeed compelling, governmental interests in public safety and crime prevention” … . [Plaintiffs] provided no proof to call the well-established premise behind the challenged provisions into question, namely, that the governmental interest in public safety is substantially furthered by reducing access to weapons designed to quickly fire significant amounts of ammunition and the ammunition feeding devices required to hold that ammunition … . Thus, we agree with Supreme Court that “[t]he core prohibitions . . . of assault weapons and large-capacity magazines [contained in the SAFE Act] do not violate the Second Amendment”… . Schulz v State of New York Exec., Andrew Cuomo, Governor, 2015 NY Slip Op 07728, 3rd Dept 10-22-15

 

You might also like
CHILD’S OUT OF COURT STATEMENTS ABOUT ABUSE BY STEPFATHER SUFFICIENTLY CORROBORATED (THIRD DEPT).
PSYCHOLOGICAL INJURY FROM EXPOSURE TO COVID IN THE WORKPLACE MUST BE ASSESSED USING THE SAME CRITERIA AS ARE APPLIED TO PHYSICAL INJURY; MATTER REMITTED (THIRD DEPT). ​
THICKNESS OF THE ICE RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE, PROMISE TO PURCHASE LIABILITY INSURANCE IS NOT THE SAME AS A PROMISE TO INDEMNIFY (THIRD DEPT).
PEOPLE DEMONSTRATED, IN A RODRIGUEZ HEARING, THE IDENTIFICATION OF DEFENDANT WAS CONFIRMATORY; WADE HEARING NOT NECESSARY.
CLAIMANT ENROLLED IN A BARBER TRAINING PROGRAM AFTER HIS REGULAR UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS HAD RUN OUT, HE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ADDITIONAL BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT).
BUILDING INSPECTOR WAS PROPERLY TERMINATED FOR FAILURE TO REQUIRE ASBESTOS ABATEMENT FOR A DEMOLISHED BUILDING, BECAUSE THE ACTIONS OF THE INSPECTOR CONSTITUTED CRIMES UNDER THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION LAW AND PENAL LAW, THE EMPLOYMENT-RELATED CHARGES WERE TIMELY (THIRD DEPT). ​
THE TRANSFER OF CERTAIN ASPECTS OF SELLER’S BUSINESS TO BUYER DID NOT MEET THE CRITERIA IN LABOR LAW 581; THEREFORE THE TRANSFER DID NOT TRIGGER THE TAKEOVER OF THE SELLER’S UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE EXPERIENCE ACCOUNT (THIRD DEPT).
HEARING OFFICER DID NOT ADDRESS PETITIONER’S MENTAL HEALTH STATUS, DETERMINATION ANNULLED.

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Zoning Board’s Determination Lacked a Rational Basis The Unaccepted Offer of a Key to Defendant’s Apartment Made to the 10-Year-Old...