This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/oct/19/new-york-connecticut-gun-bans-upheld-court

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Federal court upholds post-Sandy Hook gun bans in New York and Connecticut Federal court upholds post-Sandy Hook gun bans in New York and Connecticut
(35 minutes later)
A federal appeals court has upheld key provisions of New York and Connecticut laws banning the possession of semi-automatic assault weapons and large-capacity magazines. Gun control laws passed in New York and Connecticut to ban the possession of semi-automatic weapons and large-capacity magazines after the 2012 massacre at Sandy Hook elementary school were mostly upheld on Monday by a federal appeals court.
Related: 'It's about time': guns become serious debate issue for first time since 2000Related: 'It's about time': guns become serious debate issue for first time since 2000
The second US circuit court of appeals ruled on Monday, finding that core parts of the laws do not violate the second amendment of the US constitution. The second US circuit court of appeals in Manhattan found core parts of the laws did not violate the second amendment because there was a substantial relationship between bans on assault weapons and large-capacity magazines and the “important – indeed, compelling – state interest in controlling crime”.
The laws were passed after the December 2012 shooting at Sandy Hook elementary school in Connecticut killed 20 children and six adults. “When used, these weapons tend to result in more numerous wounds, more serious wounds, and more victims. These weapons are disproportionately used in crime, and particularly in criminal mass shootings,” according to the ruling written by circuit judge Jose A Cabranes. “They are also disproportionately used to kill law enforcement officers.”
The court said a seven-round load limit in New York could not be imposed. It also found Connecticut’s ban on a non-semi-automatic Remington 7615 to be unconstitutional. The three-judge panel noted that the Newtown, Connecticut, shooting in December 2012 occurred when 154 rounds were fired in less than five minutes, killing 20 children and six adults and renewing a nationwide discussion on the role of guns in America and how to diminish the threat of large-scale shootings.
Connecticut’s attorney general, George Jepsen, called the ruling “deeply gratifying”. But the court found Connecticut’s ban on a non-semi-automatic Remington 7615 unconstitutional. And it said a seven-round load limit in New York could not be imposed even as it upheld other bans on magazines.
The laws were opposed by groups supporting gun rights, pistol permit holders and gun sellers. Lawyers for those groups did not immediately return messages seeking comment. “Like assault weapons, large-capacity magazines result in ‘more shots fired, persons wounded, and wounds per victim than do other gun attacks’,” the court said.
New York’s attorney general, Eric Schneiderman, said he was pleased by the ruling. His Connecticut counterpart, George Jepsen, called the court’s decision “deeply gratifying”.
“At a time when many Americans have abandoned hope of government’s ability to address gun violence in our schools and on our streets, Connecticut’s laws – and today’s decision – demonstrate that willing states can enact meaningful reform to improve public safety without violating the second amendment,” Jepsen said in a statement.
“Now that the court has ruled, it is time for everyone involved in the critical debate about how to keep weapons out of the hands of dangerous and unstable people to come together to work toward sensible solutions that will keep our communities safe.”
The plaintiffs in the case were groups supporting gun rights, pistol permit holders and gun sellers. Lawyers for those groups did not immediately return messages seeking comment.
Jake Palmateer, a spokesman for the gun rights group NY2A Grassroots Coalition, which was not a plaintiff, said he was disappointed.
“Just as no American citizen should face felony prosecution in one state for what is seen as free speech in another state, no American citizen should be denied their second amendment rights just because they live in New York or Connecticut,” he said.
The appeals court addressed several gun rights groups’ arguments, including that mass shootings are rare events that would be minimally affected by gun control laws.
“That may be so,” the second circuit said. “But gun-control legislation ‘need not strike at all evils at the same time’ to be constitutional.”
The appeals court said the claim by gun rights groups that the ban on assault weapons will primarily disarm law-abiding citizens was “speculative at best, and certainly not strong enough to overcome the substantial deference we owe to predictive judgments of the legislature on matters of public safety”.