A coalition of anti-gun groups and state officials joined New Yorkers Against Gun Violence (NYAGV) to mark the 6-month anniversary of the Newtown massacre on Friday, June 14, 2013 on the steps of New York City Hall. Leah Gunn Barrett, NYAGV executive director in a press release statement said 'the New York SAFE Act gives New Yorkers some of the strongest protections against gun violence in the country,' and joined the call for Congress to follow New York's lead and pass background checks. / AP Photo/Bebeto Matthews
lohud.com
A state appeals court Wednesday rejected an attempt by gun-rights groups to block implementation of New York’s gun-control law.
Lead plaintiff Robert Schulz and more than 1,000 plaintiffs from around the state sought an injunction in March against the SAFE Act, the gun-control law enacted by Gov. Andrew Cuomo and the Legislature in January.
A Supreme Court justice in March denied the injunction, and a state appellate court Wednesday in Albany upheld the ruling. The groups could ask the Court of Appeals, the state’s highest court, to hear the case, but the court is not required to take it.
There's a difference between an injunction and a case. The injunction merely puts the law on hold, while the case will eventually throw this massive violation out. And we see here that the source lies with one side of its mouth, but tells the surprising truth with the other. That is to say, the "SAFE" Act is not the strongest protection against gun violence, but rather the most grotesque abuse of government power and infringement on the rights of citizens. The truth that I'm shocked to see admitted here is that these organizations are anti-gun. That's the truth. They don't care about safety, so long as no good citizen is armed.
ReplyDeleteThe NY SAFE act is a wonderful example what happens when the people allow the government to avoid being answerable to the public. The Governor basically declared an emergency to sidestep the requirement of at least a 72 hour opportunity to debate the bill.
ReplyDeleteThis would have also given the public a chance to find out what was in the bill and provide feedback to their elected representatives. It would have also given them a chance to discover some significant flaws in the bill that required them to go back and modify it.
So far, about 80% of the counties in the state has passed resolutions opposing the SAFE act. It will be interesting to see what happens in the next few election cycles when state level politicians have to answer to the people they represent.
But that's not ninety percent, so it much not mean much support.
Delete