New York Courts May Kill Cuomo Assault on Gun Rights
by Alex Newman
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.
Gun rights activists have been pursuing multiple
strategies to defeat the controversial infringements on the
right to keep and bear arms adopted in New York. However, attacking
them in the courts is seen by activists as among the most viable,
at least at this point.
in question, the so-called “NY SAFE Act,” purports
to limit firearms to seven rounds and ban most semi-automatic weapons
and standard-capacity magazines. Other unconstitutional and highly
controversial provisions aim to, for example, mandate gun-owner
registration with authorities while demanding government approval
for virtually every firearm transfer.
to defy the unconstitutional restrictions, and thousands
of protesters recently converged on Albany calling on “King”
Cuomo to resign or even be tried for treason owing to his blatant
disregard for his oath of office and the lawless assault on the
Constitution. The protests
are getting bigger and louder even as the state faces an avalanche
of lawsuits to overturn its lawless assault on the rights of law-abiding
Amid the anti-gun rights hysteria whipped
up by the increasingly discredited establishment media after
the massacre of children in a Connecticut
“gun-free zone,” the controversial “NY SAFE Act” was rammed
through the legislature with arm-twisting from Gov. Cuomo on January
15. It passed just hours after being introduced an apparent
violation of the state Constitution, which generally requires three
days before legislation can be passed unless there is an emergency.
In fact, the
legislation’s approval was so rushed that lawmakers, most of whom
apparently did not even read the bill, failed to exempt police officers
from the draconian restrictions, sparking a mad dash to amend the
statute before law-enforcement officials also become criminals.
Across the state, sheriffs and other top law-enforcement officials
have expressed serious concerns about the legislation, too
especially because of the brazen infringements on God-given rights
of citizens and the violation of the U.S. and state constitutions
they all took an oath to uphold.
If gun owners
get their way and the state is forced to obey the U.S. and New York
constitutions, however, it may all be a moot point. Last week, in
two separate orders, state Supreme Court justices ordered the embattled
Cuomo administration to explain itself and its unconstitutional
infringements on the unalienable right to keep and bear arms enshrined
in both the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the New
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.
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 rest of the article
© 2013 The New American