Man gets guns back, cites Heller

Story from New York:

GUILDERLAND -- When Lou Matteo got his handgun collection back, town police averted a legal battle based on a new U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding an individual's right to own a gun.

Matteo, 75, turned over his firearms in March after a verbal spat with his wife led to an order of protection against him. Guilderland police refused to give the guns back, citing a federal law barring anyone under an order of protection from possessing firearms.
...
Matteo has never been convicted of a crime, and his attorney, Tom Marcelle, said the Supreme Court ruling meant he was entitled to have his guns returned.

Matteo's case is the second locally and one of many expected nationwide in the wake of last month's decision, called District of Columbia vs. Heller, challenging legislation that bans or limits handgun ownership.

"Without the D.C. case, we have no case. 'Heller' basically was an invitation for people to test Second Amendment cases," said Marcelle, who won a 2001 Supreme Court case that allowed an after-school Bible study group in Otsego County.
...
Town Attorney Dick Sherwood denied any link between the Matteo case and the Supreme Court ruling. He said the town must follow the existing federal law: Returning the guns requires an order from federal court, not a town court.

Matteo's guns were returned after he filed his case in federal court. Sherwood said a change in the law would eliminate an illogical legal process.

"You have the power to take the guns away, you don't have the power to give them back," Sherwood said. "Our hands were tied."

For Marcelle, it is only a matter of time before a town attorney somewhere tests the legal system by refusing to return guns to a person who has not been convicted of a crime, and that case will further define rights under the Second Amendment.

Article here. The legal reasoning is kind of hard to follow here. Based on the town attorney's statement, the problem appears to be with New York state law, which evidently requires a federal court to dissolve a protective order issued by a state court? That doesn't make sense. Plus, you would think this sort of thing would have come up before.