Posted: 3/1/2013 10:57:51 AM EDT
| http://www.lohud.com/article/20130301/NEWS/303010054?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter |
Good. 
Seems like a good way to go about it. I'm no lawyer, but it would seem that if it can be proven that the emergency need was false (and that doesn't seem difficult) then the law did not follow due process and should be voided. Which of course, it could go through again through due process, but after the uproar I would think would fail. |
|
I like.
UNSafe needs to be legally attacked from all angles and this is a good one. Keep the bastards busy trying to defend this piece of shit. Make it expensive for them. Eventually maybe one judge somewhere will grant us some relief. The more these cases are reported in the media, the more doubt gets sown with the general public regarding the inevitability of the law. Thumbs up. |
|
Quoted:
Good.
Seems like a good way to go about it. I'm no lawyer, but it would seem that if it can be proven that the emergency need was false (and that doesn't seem difficult) then the law did not follow due process and should be voided. Which of course, it could go through again through due process, but after the uproar I would think would fail. It is hard to imagine the uproar and attention this thing would get if it had to go through the proper channels before getting passed again. I think half the state would be in Albany beating down doors of senators. A lot of people have woken up since 1/15/13. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Good.
Seems like a good way to go about it. I'm no lawyer, but it would seem that if it can be proven that the emergency need was false (and that doesn't seem difficult) then the law did not follow due process and should be voided. Which of course, it could go through again through due process, but after the uproar I would think would fail. It is hard to imagine the uproar and attention this thing would get if it had to go through the proper channels before getting passed again. I think half the state would be in Albany beating down doors of senators. A lot of people have woken up since 1/15/13. This...if it is in fact true that invalid messages of neccessity get sent back.... and this should certainly qualify.... then that sounds great. The uproad should be, and would be, huge. Knocking down doors is right. They'd be lucky if that was all. |
|
Quoted:
I like. UNSafe needs to be legally attacked from all angles and this is a good one. Keep the bastards busy trying to defend this piece of shit. Make it expensive for them us. Eventually maybe one judge somewhere will grant us some relief. The more these cases are reported in the media, the more doubt gets sown with the general public regarding the inevitability of the law. Thumbs up. The thought that our tax dollars will be paying the salaries of these fascist lawyers on the NYS payroll pisses me off, but I'll suck it up just to see the mofo's squirm. 
I wonder if a class action lawsuit can be made by we taxpayers to recover the funds the LibNazis spend to try and justify this treasonous POS in court? 
|
| Petition for 3/11/13 Case-Order for State to show cause for "necessity vote"http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2013/03/dozens_of_onondaga_county_resi.html#incart_river_default |
|
In the past, state courts have been unwilling to interfere with the legislative procedures used to speed bills through the two chambers. A similar suit objecting to the use of a message of necessity in passing the 2011 bill that legalized same-sex marriage ended in a decision that chided lawmakers and Cuomo for overstating the emergency circumstances at play, but allowed the law to stand.
Read more: http://www.timesunion.com/local/article/Lawsuits-over-gun-measure-mount-4322102.php#ixzz2MOKoeW63 |