So, I read the PDF of the court of appeals decision and a few things strike me as....well...STUPID.
First, the decisions plainly states the opinion that the Second Amendment does not apply to the laws of an individual state but only restricts the actions of the federal government. Then they go on to state that the Heller case does not have any bearing on this case.
If I am not mistaken, the Heller case did affirm the right of the individual to keep and bear arms and struck down the D.C. ban on that basis. An individual resides within the borders of a state usually. The exceptions are territories and the District of Columbia. If the Heller decision does not affirm the right of individuals residing within the borders of a "state" but only those who live in the territories or the District of Columbia, the the ruling is preferential and discriminatory at the very least.
Secondly, the court said there was a clear and rational basis for the law itself. The law makes it illegal to have these devices on the presumption that they are used primarily as weapons and are easy to learn the use of them.
So, friggn what?! Ok, why would someone want a weapon, this weapon, in the home? It is very possible that a non-firearm weapon is all they are allowed to have as some sort of self defense. It is very possible that the person is simply a weapons enthusiast or as in this case a martial artist. It is very possible that a device that fits the description in the law could actually be some sort of tie-down device used to secure cargo loads.
Are the idiot legislators of New York ready to follow the example of England and ban or regulate EVERYTHING that COULD be used as a weapon?!
The new nominee for the Supreme Court went along with the appeals court decision. That make her a hater of freedom in my mind.