After the Democrats who run New York have once again demonstrated their disdain for the rule of law and the Constitution, another federal court has reminded them they don’t get the luxury of deciding which ones they want to follow and which ones they want to ignore.
Especially when it comes to the Second Amendment.
On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge John Sinatra in Buffalo struck down a state-passed law that restricted residents from carrying firearms on private property after the U.S. Supreme Cort ruled in June that New York’s strict gun permitting process was also unconstitutional.
Specifically, Sinatra, a Trump appointee, blocked a measure that makes it a felony for a licensed gun owner to have a firearm on any private property unless the property owner specifically approves by posting a sign or by expressly granting consent.
The judge said the provision violated the Second Amendment’s right to “keep and bear arms” provision.
Reuters reported: “The ruling marked the latest courtroom victory for gun owners challenging New York’s law, called the Concealed Carry Improvement Act, that as of Sept. 1 made obtaining a firearms license more difficult and barred firearms from a long list of ‘sensitive’ public and private places. A federal appeals court has put on hold rulings by another judge that blocked major parts of the law including bars on people from carrying concealed guns in certain ‘sensitive locations.'”
Sinatra ruled in a lawsuit involving two gun owners and a pair of gun rights organizations including the Firearms Policy Coalition, which called his decision a “monumental step” toward restoring New Yorkers’ firearms rights.
The judge noted in his ruling that the provision of law he struck down violated the Constitution under Supreme Court precedents that included the June ruling.
“Property owners indeed have the right to exclude,” Sinatra wrote. “But the state may not unilaterally exercise that right and, thereby, interfere with the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens who seek to carry for self-defense outside of their own homes.”
Not surprisingly, New York’s far-left Democratic attorney general, Letitia James, said the state will be appealing Sinatra’s ruling.
Meanwhile, on the other side of the country, Democrat-run Oregon is preparing to implement a de-facto ban on all gun sales after a new ballot measure takes effect early next month.
Concerns over exactly what the measure does and does not do has led to a panic buying spree in the state, “which has gummed up the system so badly that some sources are saying there is essentially a de facto gun ban already in place,” Outdoor Life reported.
“People in Oregon are concerned, to put it mildly,” Larry Keane, the senior vice president for government and public affairs for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, told the outlet. “I can’t think of another word besides panicked.”
Outdoor Life noted further:
This panic stems from the recent passage of Ballot Measure 114, which goes into effect on Dec. 8. The measure was promoted as a way to decrease gun violence, and it passed by the slimmest of margins on Nov. 8, with 50.7 percent of the state’s voters in favor of the measure and 49.3 percent opposed. Looking at a map of the state, the vast majority of counties—30 out of 36—voted against the measure, but the urban voting bloc that exists in the state’s liberal-leaning counties was strong enough to push it through.
The ballot measure includes three major rule changes. It prohibits the purchase, sale, or possession of magazines holding more than 10 rounds, and it requires stricter rules regarding safety training, fingerprinting, and background checks. There is also the introduction of the Permit-to-Purchase program, which requires any person who wants to purchase a firearm to obtain a state-issued permit before doing so.
“This isn’t a permit to carry a concealed weapon,” Keane explained. “You need the government’s permission to exercise your Second Amendment rights, which is a pretty shocking concept to me.”