Posted on 01/29/2013 3:47:01 PM PST by GlockThe Vote
http://www.nysrpa.org/files/SAFENoticeOfClaim.pdf
Here is is - filed today.
Copy of filing.
1 of I hope millions!
Flood the system!
I spoke to another lawyer who is filing too soon.
Very straightforward filing. Mostly cites the 14th Amendment.
Seeks injunctive relief from the law and a declaration it is unconstitutional
I especially liked the complaint about the law being too broad and vague. ;-)
After Heller and McDonald, suits should have been flying against the Sullivan Act.
Why should law enforcement have an advantage over common citizens?
I don’t think it’s too soon. Go for it.
Good enough for thee but not for me ain’t gonna fly here.
the magazine capacity limit is also unconsitutional.
Good enough for thee but not for me ain’t gonna fly here.
the magazine capacity limit is also unconstitutional.
I’m going to guess he meant the lawyer is “also” filing soon. I agree, flood the system.
What holster holds the most magazines?
FWIW, this is not a lawsuit and it has not been “filed”.
It is merely a notice of intention to file a lawsuit. It was directed to the State Attorney General and not to any court.
Thanks Buzzkill.....
Copy/paste from the pdf file:
-
II. NATURE OF CLAIM(S)
Plaintiffs claim that passage and enforcement of the aforementioned legislation:
A. violates their fundamental constitutional rights to lawfully possess, keep, bear and
use firearms for self-defense and other lawful purposes;
B. violates their constitutional rights to privacy;
C. impermissibly interferes with and infringes upon their fundamental constitutional
rights to travel both intra-state and inter-state with lawfully possessed firearms;
D. unconstitutionally criminalizes and bans the possession of certain firearms,
ammunition and large capacity feeding devices that were legally possessed prior by plaintiffs prior
to the legislation’s passage and enforcement, and in which the plaintiff’s had a cognizable property
feeding devices amounts to a deprivation and taking of them by the State of New York under color
of law and without due process or just compensation. As such, passage and enforcement of the NY
SAFE Act effectuates an unconstitutional taking of private property under the Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendments to the U.S. Constitution;
E. unlawfully and unconstitutionally imposes restrictions on the ability of the plaintiffs
to conduct business on both inter-state and intra-state levels with the designers of, manufacturers of,
sellers of, distributors of, and purchasers of certain firearms, ammunition, and large capacity
interest. The outright criminalization and ban of these firearms, ammunition and large capacity
feeding devices, all in violation of the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution;
F. deprives the plaintiffs of life, liberty and/or property without due process of law, in
violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution;
G. deprives the plaintiffs of the equal protection of the laws, in violation of the
Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution;
H. was passed and is being continuously enforced with the ongoing tortious intent to
harass, harm, impede, interfere with, disrupt, interrupt, and/or destroy the present and future
business and commercial activities of those plaintiffs who engage in the design of, manufacture of,
distribution of, sale of, possession of, and/or training in the safe and lawful use of firearms,
ammunition, and/or large capacity feeding devices; and
I. the legislation is impermissibly vague and overbroad.
I think you misunderstood my comment. If government wants to limit magazine capacity, there should be no exemptions, law enforcement included.
Laws should apply equally to all, including government. When government exempts itself from the law, it is tyranny.
I thought holsters held guns, not magazines. LOL:)
No, it’s not directed at you ....
if you notice every piece of legislation that is directed at you and me...it exempts the ruling class. Senator Feinstein can have an assault weapon of her choosing with 30 round or 100 round magazines and as many as she would like with as many cartridges as she can stuff into it.
Us... we can’t have AR’s and can have only a single shot bolt action not to exceed .177 caliber and you can only pump it 10 times before you damage the seals. (Crosman 760 bb/pellet guns or better yet the Daisey Red Rider with the compass in the stock).
I’ve often wondered why the seven round limit. Is this law intended to be a stimulus for revolver manufacturers since there are many 7,8,9 and 10 round revolvers available, the first two in .357 and the latter in .22? Or does the law require revolvers be limited as well?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.