State Supreme Court wants NYS to show good cause that gun law is constitutional

[rushmc 18]

Quote

BUFFALO, N.Y. (WKTV) - The Buffalo-based attorney who is spear-heading a lawsuit against Governor Andrew Cuomo's recent gun laws said that Wednesday was "monumental," as a State Supreme Court Justice issued an order requiring New York State to show good cause that the law is constitutional

Should be this way for EVERY law at all levels

http://www.wktv.com/news/local/State-Supreme-Court-wants-NYS-to-show-good-cause-that-gun-law-is-constitutional-193664911.html

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[toolbox 0]

[kallend 1,635]

Quote

Should be this way for EVERY law at all levels

Patriot Act would have been a better place to start.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[ManagingPrime 0]

Quote

Quote

Should be this way for EVERY law at all levels

Patriot Act would have been a better place to start.

+1

[sfzombie 3]

looks like there really are some things that everyone agrees on, maybe?

http://kitswv.com

[rhaig 0]

Quote

Quote

Should be this way for EVERY law at all levels

Patriot Act would have been a better place to start.

this

--
Rob

[ManagingPrime 0]

Quote

looks like there really are some things that everyone agrees on, maybe?

I'd say most people agree on most things. Once, agreement is reached there is not much left to talk about for most. But, when people disagree they can argue until the cows come home.

Perception is not reality.

[OHCHUTE 0]

The purpose of all these new gun laws is to give jobs to inner city folk. Do you realize how many people the gov't will have to hire to deal with every gun sale. DHS is a jobs program. You've been to the airport right? Buying a gun will be like getting your car registered at the DMV....hundreds of people needed. They can't charge enough in licensing fees to cover labor costs in dealing with all the paperwork.

The democrats forget that gun legislation will cost a lot of money to administer. That means your property taxes will go up.

HELLO

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Should be this way for EVERY law at all levels

Patriot Act would have been a better place to start.

Agreed

With EVERY law

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 1,635]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Should be this way for EVERY law at all levels

Patriot Act would have been a better place to start.

Agreed

With EVERY law

EVERY law should start with an examination of the Patriot Act's constitutionality?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[winsor 186]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Should be this way for EVERY law at all levels

Patriot Act would have been a better place to start.

Agreed

With EVERY law

EVERY law should start with an examination of the Patriot Act's constitutionality?

In Chicago ca. 1969 there was a group called the SVNA - the Students for Violent Non-Action. They were, of course, totally non-violent, and used a tongue in cheek approach to addressing issues instead of alienating by confrontation.

When I hear sweetness-and-light monikers related to anything political, I shudder. To "Pacify" a village required extreme violence so the residents could "rest in peace," the "House Unamerican Activities Committee" was the most unamerican thing the House had ever fostered, and so forth.

Going all Godwin here, "Homeland Security" and the "Patriot Act" were names that would have made Unser Giftzwerg (Josef Goebbels) proud.

"Damn the Constitution, full speed ahead!"


BSBD,

Winsor

[skypuppy 1]

Quote

The purpose of all these new gun laws is to give jobs to inner city folk. Do you realize how many people the gov't will have to hire to deal with every gun sale. DHS is a jobs program. You've been to the airport right? Buying a gun will be like getting your car registered at the DMV....hundreds of people needed. They can't charge enough in licensing fees to cover labor costs in dealing with all the paperwork.

The democrats forget that gun legislation will cost a lot of money to administer. That means your property taxes will go up.

HELLO

frankly the democrats are counting on this. they'll raise the front end fees so much that they hope to make ownership unaffordable. Which they think will mean people will give up their guns, but in reality will just drive everyone underground.

If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Quote

The purpose of all these new gun laws is to give jobs to inner city folk. Do you realize how many people the gov't will have to hire to deal with every gun sale. DHS is a jobs program. You've been to the airport right? Buying a gun will be like getting your car registered at the DMV....hundreds of people needed. They can't charge enough in licensing fees to cover labor costs in dealing with all the paperwork.

The democrats forget that gun legislation will cost a lot of money to administer. That means your property taxes will go up.

HELLO

frankly the democrats are counting on this. they'll raise the front end fees so much that they hope to make ownership unaffordable. Which they think will mean people will give up their guns, but in reality will just drive everyone underground.

LOL, what on earth makes you think you're qualfied to speak for what "Democrats think"?

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Quote

The purpose of all these new gun laws is to give jobs to inner city folk. Do you realize how many people the gov't will have to hire to deal with every gun sale. DHS is a jobs program. You've been to the airport right? Buying a gun will be like getting your car registered at the DMV....hundreds of people needed. They can't charge enough in licensing fees to cover labor costs in dealing with all the paperwork.

The democrats forget that gun legislation will cost a lot of money to administer. That means your property taxes will go up.

HELLO

frankly the democrats are counting on this. they'll raise the front end fees so much that they hope to make ownership unaffordable. Which they think will mean people will give up their guns, but in reality will just drive everyone underground.

LOL, what on earth makes you think you're qualfied to speak for what "Democrats think"?

Years of observing the lying bastards?

(I am just using a wide brush comment as learned from billvon

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Andy9o8 0]

Oh BTW, in New York State, the Supreme Court are what New York calls its trial-level courts, not the highest-level appellate courts in the state. (Don't ask me why.) So this ruling was by a trial-level judge.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Oh BTW, in New York State, the Supreme Court are what New York calls its trial-level courts, not the highest-level appellate courts in the state. (Don't ask me why.) So this ruling was by a trial-level judge.

This in not the way all of these kind of things start?

I guess I understood this was a first step

It is not?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Quote

Oh BTW, in New York State, the Supreme Court are what New York calls its trial-level courts, not the highest-level appellate courts in the state. (Don't ask me why.) So this ruling was by a trial-level judge.

This in not the way all of these kind of things start?

I guess I understood this was a first step

It is not?

Yes, it was a first step; and yes, it is the way these things typically start.

I was just clarifying that this was a regular trial-level court, despite the fact that NY State refers to its trial-level courts as the state's "Supreme Court". A number of states call their highest-level courts something other than "Supreme Court"; NY State is one of them.

[dpreguy 14]

Unless the reporter has it wrong - the reporter said the order to show cause was issued by a "Supreme Court Justice".

(Yes the district court equivalents in NY are called the Supreme Courts, but trial judges are called judges.)

Appeals court members are called Justices. Trial court judges are called Judges. If the reporter was using the correct terminology, it was issued at the appellate level.

[Andy9o8 0]

The reporter got it right, and so did I.

In NY State, the Supreme Court has trial divisions and the Appellate Divisions. The trial division of the NY State Supreme Court is one of the trial-level courts. The formal title of jurists in the trial division of the Supreme Court is "Justice". The judge in this case who issued the show-cause order is a Justice of the trial division of the Supreme Court. He is a trial-level judge.

(FWIW, the first-level appellate courts in NY State - which are superior in jurisdiction/authority to all the state's trial-level courts - are the Appellate Divisions. The highest appellate court in NY State is the Court of Appeals. Interestingly enough (and this is just fascinating isn't it?), the formal title of the jurists in the Court of Appeals is "Judge". Go figure, but that's the case.)

[davjohns 1]

It's NY. It does not surprise me at all.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

It's NY. It does not surprise me at all.

Perhaps. Every state has its own special weirdness related to law or government. Take, for example (at random, of course) Alabama. I'd never have thought that as recently as 2012 racial segregation in schools and poll taxes would be formally reaffirmed as permissible in the state. But, in fact, they are:

Quote

Alabama Segregation Reference Ban Amendment, Amendment 4 (2012)

The Alabama Segregation Reference Ban Amendment, also known as Amendment 4, appeared on the November 6, 2012 ballot in the state of Alabama as a legislatively-referred constitutional amendment where it was defeated.

The measure would have removed language from the Alabama Constitution that references segregation by race in schools. The measure also would have repealed Section 259, which related to poll taxes.

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Alabama_Segregation_Reference_Ban_Amendment,_Amendment_4_%282012%29

At least Mississippi had the good taste to formally abolish slavery. This year.

So yeah, people can be kinda funny.

[dpreguy 14]

I can learn. Thanks.
As usual, most NY stuff is puffed up and fucked up.

[dpreguy 14]

I can learn. Thanks

As usual, anything in NY is puffed up and fucked up.

[brenthutch 384]

Quote

Quote

Should be this way for EVERY law at all levels

Patriot Act would have been a better place to start.

+2

[davjohns 1]

Quote

Quote

It's NY. It does not surprise me at all.

Perhaps. Every state has its own special weirdness related to law or government. Take, for example (at random, of course) Alabama. I'd never have thought that as recently as 2012 racial segregation in schools and poll taxes would be formally reaffirmed as permissible in the state. But, in fact, they are:

Quote

Alabama Segregation Reference Ban Amendment, Amendment 4 (2012)

The Alabama Segregation Reference Ban Amendment, also known as Amendment 4, appeared on the November 6, 2012 ballot in the state of Alabama as a legislatively-referred constitutional amendment where it was defeated.

The measure would have removed language from the Alabama Constitution that references segregation by race in schools. The measure also would have repealed Section 259, which related to poll taxes.

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Alabama_Segregation_Reference_Ban_Amendment,_Amendment_4_%282012%29

At least Mississippi had the good taste to formally abolish slavery. This year.

So yeah, people can be kinda funny.

Andy...you're going to make me look up this amendment to see what it actually said. I was in Alabama (from Alabama) during the run up to the vote. The advertisements for and against this measure made it sound like they were talking about two different pieces of legislation. The ones against said if you voted for it, you were a racist. The ones for said something totally different, like you had to vote for it unless you wanted bunnies sacrificed at the beginning of church services (I don't recall exactly what it was). I suspect it was some mixed legislation that had something racial attached to something unsavory to try to play the racism card to get it through. Not really sure. You know better than most that you can't take these things at face value.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.