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.
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.
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 sakeedit on 8-3-2013 by StrawHatBrian because: (no reason given)