UnSAFE
This ought to be good: State Supreme Court wants NYS to show good cause that gun law is constitutional
The thing about NY’s law is that it is so onerous, it will definitely be struck down in part and possibly in its entirety.
6 Responses to “UnSAFE”
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
March 1st, 2013 at 8:27 am
Amazing. Overnight, New Yorkers were made to be felons and yet, the State gets until April 29th to prove it’s case or the injuction is issued. How about we have the injunction now? How many people will be arrested, jailed and lose almost everything until they get relief. I’m happy that the NY Supreme Court is looking into this and I am confident that the UNsafe act will be struck down. But, in the meantime New Yorker’s and their lives and liberty is in peril. There is something fundamentally flawed with that and it’s bullshit. Cuomo needs to be removed from office and jailed.
March 1st, 2013 at 8:55 am
The use of the word “definitely” in relation to any impending court decision is…optimistic.
March 1st, 2013 at 9:54 am
@Paul Especially when that court is in New York state. While I’m happy something is being done, but I’m not optimistic either.
March 1st, 2013 at 11:34 am
Struck down in part – like maybe the magazine limit is made to be 10 by court fiat, or something else “sensible” and “rational” to the court?
The whole law is a great 18 USC 242 case against everyone who voted for it.
March 1st, 2013 at 1:55 pm
There are plenty of unconstitutional laws that the NY Supreme Court could have demanded NYS/NYC to show good cause for. I hope they overturn it, but somehow I doubt it.
TS
March 3rd, 2013 at 10:52 pm
Mag limit at 10 is a compromise.
When you look at how the US Supreme Court got around the Constitutional limitation on States making a “Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts”, I don’t know how much optimism is in order here.