GOOD NEWS NY; the state supreme court may overturn those stupid gun laws.

page: 1
30

log in

join
+6 more 
posted on Mar, 6 2013 @ 11:08 AM
link   
Members of the NY state supreme court have demanded that the state prove that the laws are constitutional and that they weren't rushed through too quickly, which would be another constitutional violation.


New York Courts May Kill Cuomo Assault on Gun Rights

In a move widely celebrated by activists, New York Supreme Court justices last week ordered Democrat Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s administration to prove by the end of next month that its recent assault on gun rights is actually constitutional — critics and experts say it clearly violates both the U.S. and state constitutions. The extraordinary speed used to adopt the controversial legislation, which appears to have violated a separate provision in the state constitution, is also facing scrutiny from the judicial branch.

If the state government fails to prove its case on both counts in the time frame provided, the unprecedented attack on gun rights may be struck down entirely, or at least temporarily rendered void.

The first order, issued by State Supreme Justice Deborah Chimes on February 27, demands that the state government prove that its unprecedented infringements on gun rights are indeed constitutional by April 29. The lawsuit was initiated by gun dealer Edward Holtz, who argues that the unconstitutional statute, among other problems, put him out of business, left him with merchandise he cannot sell, and violates his rights. According to the order issued by Justice Chimes, if the state is unable to prove that its statute is constitutional by the deadline, she will temporarily enjoin it.

The other major lawsuit making its way through the courts resulted in an order issued on March 1 by State Supreme Court Justice Gerald Connolly. The justice granted a hearing to the more than 1,250 plaintiffs, who are arguing, among other points, that the state’s decision to waive the constitutionally mandated three-day review before voting on bills represents a blatant violation of the state constitution.

The gun owners, who are representing themselves in the case under the banner of “We the People of New York,” also say the dubious process used to adopt the unconstitutional law violates the rights to free speech, property ownership, and to petition the government — all of which are guaranteed in the U.S. and New York constitutions. If the Cuomo administration and lawmakers who supported the lawless infringements fail to “show cause” for the assault in court by March 11, the court would also enjoin the controversial statute.

The New American

It looks like all hope is not lost for the poor folks of New York just yet as the courts may reign in some of the insanity and repeal those stupid, panicky gun laws passed in the wake of Sandy Hook.

I wonder how this will affect the other states trying to infringe on gun-owner's rights? Hopefully sanity prevails and the law is struck down.




posted on Mar, 6 2013 @ 11:16 AM
link   
Let's hope sanity and justice prevails.
You have a
avatar.



posted on Mar, 6 2013 @ 12:49 PM
link   
Hopefully governor commode and his supporters can face criminal charges over this. Probably too much to hope for though. I am glad to see New Yorkers stand up for their rights.



posted on Mar, 6 2013 @ 02:50 PM
link   
I hope the legal challenges work out.

There are a lot of people who were planning non-compliance to the new laws once they went into effect and I'm sure that would have caused major headaches for police and other jackbooted agencies that would have had to enforce the law.

As much as I'd like to see loads of proud gun-owners standing up to the tyranny of the NY government, you know they would have to perform a raid on some poor gun-owning family with kids in full riot gear in order to make an example of what would happen to people who don't comply. They'd probably chose a house with young kids in it to boot and come in with guns blazing.

I'd rather that this be settled peacefully in the courts.



posted on Mar, 6 2013 @ 07:06 PM
link   
Good for New Yorkers! I'm impressed that they have responded so quickly and in such force to take a clear and firm stand against uncostitutional and illegal behavior by their elected officials. Its a sad affair to have to keep these clowns in check. I really think if this issue doesn't get resolved, the next step might very well be open violence against politicians. People will only be pushed so far, and on the issue of self-defense, its not far at all.



posted on Mar, 6 2013 @ 08:54 PM
link   
I'll sure be watching very closely for what theory they use to overturn this all with. I LOVE that they may do it, don't get me wrong.....but what they've done is the same California, Illinois and others have done and for years now. Here is hoping. Perhaps Heller can help in this case too.



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 06:27 AM
link   
If I lived in New York I would pack my bags tonight and move. As quick as possible. Seriously.

The Government has 1 job. Protect the rights of the people. And it fails miserably at it.



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 08:45 AM
link   
You are not denying ignorance if any of you think these laws will be thrown out.

It is part of a plan, as you all know. The law is already in effect, and no judge here in liberal-ville NY will toss it out and anything stated to the contrary is just....ignorant.

While I applaud the efforts of the people filing suit, fact is, NYC has the bulk of the voters, and those voters shall win the day.

Kudos for mob rule!!

On a side note, I live in Buffalo and most counties upstate have made laws against any LEO enforcing the SAFE ACT. What peeps should be talking about is how the state legislature is voting this week on making people carry a million dollar insurance policy on EVERY weapon.... so even if these laws are deemed null and void, the cost of keeping them will be out of reach unless you are rich.



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 12:15 AM
link   
Look, all i know is, the 10th amendment is there to protect the 2nd, it clearly states that no law shall be passed that limits/hinders in any way, shape or form, the ability/accessibility of honest citizens to their right to bare arms, based(yes it says this next part too) on the type of weapon, the number of weapons, the type of ammunition, the amount of said ammunition among other things, that already rules out the laws they've tried to enforce in some states, its unconstitutional, and just so you get the idea...back then tanks didn't exist, their equivalent of today's tank was a cannon, and that amendment basically says, that if you feel like it you can have a cannon in your house, so don't come to me saying " but they meant for hunting, and how would they know assault rifles would exist"..bull$%&^ they were okay if you owned a cannon for christ sake
edit on 8-3-2013 by StrawHatBrian because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 02:58 AM
link   
reply to post by StrawHatBrian
 


Um, no offense, but it's the 9th amendment which protects against misinterpretation of the Constitution.

Amendment IX

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Keep 'em loaded 24/7.



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 10:54 AM
link   
reply to post by WAstateMosin
 


my mistake, i just realized that wasn't in any of the amendments and it was all one gigantic brain fart, yes i know what you're talking about in the IX amendment but i wasn't referring to that, now i have to go and find where exactly i read it.
edit on 8-3-2013 by StrawHatBrian because: it will always be because of spelling mistakes



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 11:16 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainOblivious
You are not denying ignorance if any of you think these laws will be thrown out.

It is part of a plan, as you all know. The law is already in effect, and no judge here in liberal-ville NY will toss it out and anything stated to the contrary is just....ignorant.

While I applaud the efforts of the people filing suit, fact is, NYC has the bulk of the voters, and those voters shall win the day.


I agree with you here - these Judges were put in place by the same line of rights grabbing legislators the people in NYC have elected for years. We see how that is working out…

I'm sure they are sympathetic to the cause and suitably left leaning enough to make the right choice for the government.



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Golf66
 


Its sad to say but, I think the challenge based on how fast the laws were pushed through has a better chance of success.

Like you said, the judges were appointed by the same liberal scumbags who pushed this crap through so they're likely to interpret the constitution loosely to suit whatever their ideological bent may be. It will be harder to wiggle out of the way the bills were passed without debate and in such a rush.

The only problem with this is; the legislature will probably just re-introduce the bills (and probably add in more intrusive garbage they hadn't thought of before) and just pass it all over again after the proper amount of debate time had passed.



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 02:28 PM
link   
While there at it they should loose some of the standing laws as well! that would send a message. Punish the b***** for attempting to do this. They could say "Well since you brought this to this point maybe we should look at the whole thing"



posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 05:58 PM
link   
reply to post by FortAnthem
 


The courts are cutting down Mayor Bloomerpants ban on 32 ounce sodas as we nod in agreement.

One small step for the Constitution.....one giant leap for Americankind.



posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by StrawHatBrian
Look, all i know is, the 10th amendment is there to protect the 2nd, it clearly states that no law shall be passed that limits/hinders in any way, shape or form, the ability/accessibility of honest citizens to their right to bare arms, based(yes it says this next part too) on the type of weapon, the number of weapons, the type of ammunition, the amount of said ammunition among other things, that already rules out the laws they've tried to enforce in some states, its unconstitutional, and just so you get the idea...back then tanks didn't exist, their equivalent of today's tank was a cannon, and that amendment basically says, that if you feel like it you can have a cannon in your house, so don't come to me saying " but they meant for hunting, and how would they know assault rifles would exist"..bull$%&^ they were okay if you owned a cannon for christ sake
edit on 8-3-2013 by StrawHatBrian because: (no reason given)


No worries you will still retain the right to bare arms



It's just the right to bear arms that is seriously in question... May the Supreme Court of New York State prevail!!!



posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 07:45 PM
link   
reply to post by MsAphrodite
 


hahahahaha! woops
, sry, sry, right to "bear" not bare, you're right



posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 07:47 PM
link   
reply to post by MsAphrodite
 


anyways the first lady looks like she could take down mike tyson





top topics
 
30

log in

join