Some Courts Actually Do Understand the 2nd Amendment


Given the negative news about the U.S. court system’s hostility towards the rights of Americans to own firearms, it’s understandable if you expect every news article about the courts involving guns to be a frustrating read promoting gun control.

Fortunately, though, there are a few rulings coming through the court system in which the courts actually understand the 2nd Amendment and uphold an Americans right to bear arms. Yes, even when the case comes from notoriously anti-gun New York. Chris Eger writes,

The U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals this week said a New York woman who had her firearms picked up by the local sheriff five years ago should be granted a hearing to get them back.

The decision involves Christine Panzella who had her guns seized while she was the subject of a protective order filed by her ex-husband. Now with the order out of effect since 2013, the Nassau County Sheriff’s Department says she can’t get them back without a hearing. This week a three-judge panel upheld a lower court’s decision on appeal and unanimously said there is no apparent reason why she shouldn’t receive a hearing to get her firearms returned by the agency.

Five days after her ex-husband filed a protective order in New York Family Court against Panzella in June 2012, deputies arrived at her home to deliver it and in the process seized her pistol license along with two rifles and three shotguns, although the court did not specifically order their confiscation. The guns were locked up in the armory of the Nassau County Correctional Center, where they remain.

The temporary order expired and her ex eventually withdrew the filing in March 2013, leading county officials to return her pistol license. Since she is not prohibited from possessing firearms, Panzella has since purchased a new pistol. However, the county has a policy of not returning long arms seized from an individual unless they are given a court order to do so, and the family court does not have the authority to release them.

To get her guns back, in October 2013, Panzella filed suit against the county and sheriff citing her 14th Amendment due process rights and Second Amendment right to bear arms were being violated.

Panzella won her case. The county then (for whatever illogical and unlawful reason) appealed the decision which was struck down by the 2nd Circuit Court.


It’s beyond me why this sheriff’s department thought that they had any kind of legal standing to keep Panzella’s weapons even though they were seized without court order and there was no legal reason to to keep her from owning guns (they probably were going from the also-illegal thinking of civil forfeiture). Fortunately, though, even some courts rule on cases from anti-gun strongholds in ways that support the Constitution and our right to bear arms.



  1. America tell Blomberg lay off the innocent citizens rights to carry and own guns and if he and these other Anti gun Fascist Mayors keep pushing we will take their jobs away from them!!!!!.

  2. it’s easy to see the wife has the balls in that family, what kinda fool would give their guns up. hope she dumped her man-gina hubby

  3. Even this ruling is somewhat bogus. Since there was no order to confiscate the firearms in the first place, the court should have simply ruled that they must be returned without delay and ordered the Sheriff in this case to cease such illegal and criminal seizures.

  4. I agree with Dr. Redmond. The court wimped out on the authority it has, and the ruling it should have made. This is a milk toast ruling at best. The sheriff should be held accountable for his actions in refusing to return legally owned guns to the person who owns them since she is legally able to own guns. Better yet, move out of that state to where your legal rights are respected.

  5. I’m surprised that NY didn’t give the fire arms to the nearest criminal. After all, they’re the only ones allowed to have a gun in NY.

    • Some might offer, looking at this case, that that is pretty much what happened. It also seems like some criminals wear uniforms.

  6. And what penalties, he laughingly, perhaps sadly asks, have been or will be enforced on The Forces of Law and Order, or what pass therefore, for their seemingly extra lawful actions in this case, or will we here see, from Animal Farm yet another case where some of the animals are more equal than others?

  7. I don’t understand what right the police had for confiscating her rifles… The Court Order was only for the pistol license, thus the pistol, but unless the Order included all firearms, the rifles shouldn’t have been taken… And what ridiculous Law prohibits a Court that originally had the authority to issue the seizure to rescind the Order and have the weapons returned without having a higher Court do it…

  8. I guarantee that the guns aren’t there….they were split up by these so called law enforcement officers….watch and see what happens. In Rhode Island I had a friend that guns were taken from a friend of his house while he was on vacation he didn’t feel safe leaving guns in his unattended house and left them with a friend. While away the friend had a car stolen and when police came to his house for follow up on the report they noticed the guns and took them from him without court order. When friend returned went to police station and told them he wanted his weapons back. The chief of police told him he had to hire attorney to get weapons back it took two years when all was said and done nobody could find the weapons. I’m not sure of the final outcome however he contacted state police but you know how law enforcement cover and protect each other ill have to find out what happened

Comments are closed.