• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

NY case regarding spped of passaage of anti-gun law will be heard

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/02/court-to-review-speedy-approval-ny-gun-controls/

The rules allow for quick passage of bills .. but the intent of these rules I don't think will apply to the gun legislation


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/02/court-to-review-speedy-approval-ny-gun-controls/


I predict a win for us .. and if not, crap should start hitting the fan.

The state will claim that the need was immediate but that's going to be a hard sell given that we have had weapons for over 200 years.

This case will likely effect many other illegal methods being considered by many legislatures of other states.
 

motoxmann

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2012
Messages
760
Location
Middletown, CT
anyone who represents himself in court, has a fool for a client.

lol, too true in a lot of cases. are you referring to Cuomo? because for obvious reasons; ANYone who represent Cuomo has a fool for a client. "lets ban soda, lets ban styrofoam. maybe next I can try banning drugs, alcohol, and cigarettes. think of the children!"
 
Last edited:

trailblazer2003

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
211
Location
Madison, Wisconsin, ,
lol, too true in a lot of cases. are you referring to Cuomo? because for obvious reasons; ANYone who represent Cuomo has a fool for a client. "lets ban soda, lets ban styrofoam. maybe next I can try banning drugs, alcohol, and cigarettes. think of the children!"

The plaintiff's are representing themselves. I'm sure Cuomo will have the best lawyers New Yorker's can't afford to pay for.
 

motoxmann

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2012
Messages
760
Location
Middletown, CT
A monkey could present this case ... the state has to show that an emergency was actually present for them to do what they did.

did they follow the laws for an emergency procedure? because from what I can tell, they bypassed several legal steps even for that route to be used as an excuse. correct me if I'm wrong.
I believe the purpose of this whole case is for NY to prove the LAWS are constitutional, not the procedure used. or maybe it's both?
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
did they follow the laws for an emergency procedure? because from what I can tell, they bypassed several legal steps even for that route to be used as an excuse. correct me if I'm wrong.
I believe the purpose of this whole case is for NY to prove the LAWS are constitutional, not the procedure used. or maybe it's both?

�14. No bill shall be passed or become a law unless it shall have been printed and upon the desks of the members, in its final form, at least three calendar legislative days prior to its final passage, unless the governor, or the acting governor, shall have certified, under his or her hand and the seal of the state, the facts which in his or her opinion necessitate an immediate vote thereon, in which case it must nevertheless be upon the desks of the members in final form, not necessarily printed, before its final passage; nor shall any bill be passed or become a law, except by the assent of a majority of the members elected to each branch of the legislature; and upon the last reading of a bill, no amendment thereof shall be allowed, and the question upon its final passage shall be taken immediately thereafter, and the ayes and nays entered on the journal. (Formerly �15. Renumbered and amended by Constitutional Convention of 1938 and approved by vote of the people November 8, 1938; further amended by vote of the people November 6, 2001.)

It's in NY's constitution ... In CT, its in the joint rules ...


http://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...on+the+desks+of+the+members&hl=en&as_sdt=4,33

A good case to read...

Together with the message of necessity:

http://effectiveny.org/issue-summary/Message-of-Necessity-for-Immediate-Vote


The governor is require to state FACTS ... I don't really see any FACTS in his statement ... just the random ramblings of an idiot
 
Last edited:

motoxmann

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2012
Messages
760
Location
Middletown, CT
ah ok, so the answer to my above question is actually both a 'yes' and a 'no' lol. wonderful. hopefully the courts do their job properly
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
ah ok, so the answer to my above question is actually both a 'yes' and a 'no' lol. wonderful. hopefully the courts do their job properly

The power in NY is vested in their constitution ... so this will have to go all the way up to the supreme court in NY.... the courts in NY have seemingly said : hey, the law is that he has to give a reason ... not that the reason has to be reasonable ...

In CT, the e-cert process is covered under the Joint rules of the legislature ... and it gives a good deal of deference to the e-cert but not like NY ... their has to be some reasonableness to it or it conflicts with our freedom of information act.


I think that giving people such power and having so many instances where it has been used inappropriately that it should just be crap-canned .... even though 90% of the time it is used appropriately and for good reason.
 
Last edited:
Top