1St Response to Lawsuit Against NYS Safe Act

[88GW]

One of the first official legal shots against the SAFE Act landed with a thud a few minutes ago, as acting Albany County State Supreme Court Justice Thomas McNamara denied activist Bob Schulz’s request for a preliminary injunction against the anti-gun measure.

“Judicial review of a message of necessity is not allowed,” McNamara said, noting that there is long Court of Appeals precedent that limits the court’s intrusion into legislative affairs.

Schulz, pictured here, said he would on Thursday seek permission to appeal his request to the state Court of Appeals, saying that because it involves a constitutional matter, he believes he can skip the mid level appeals process.

“This judge can not overturn the rulings of the high court of the state,” Schulz said after the brief hearing at which McNamara ruled from the bench.

Defending the state was Assistant AG James McGowan who said “Our position is the judiciary has to recognize that there are co-equal branches of government.”

Technically, Schulz was one of more than a 1,000 New Yorkers who are upset at the law. And his is one of several suits filed or about to be filed against the measure which bans the sale of assault style weapons and places new restrictions on gun and ammo owernship.

“What the court said today is if you don’t like them vote the bums out,” remarked one of the plaintiffs who attended the hearing, Len Degiovine of Westerlo.

Indeed, Schulz, in laying out his injunction request, recounted how the bill was passed literally in the middle of the night hours after legislative leaders and Gov. Andrew Cuomo decided to issue a Message of Necessity which voids the usual three day waiting and study period required before a law is passed.

“No member of the legislature asked to see it,” Schulz said, referring to rank and file lawmakers who got to read neither the SAFE Act nor the message of necessity before voting.

Schulz – who is alternately admired as an important check on government abuse and condemned as a far-right fringe player — was upbeat noting that he has battled state government for years over issues such as bond acts, and tax laws.

He believes his efforts to stop the SAFE Act at a minimum have made more New Yorkers realize that there is a state constitution and he added that this issue seems to have riled up people to an unprecedented degree.

“In all my years I’ve never seen this kind of interest and anger,” he said.

 

 

http://blog.timesunion.com/capitol/archives/181571/no-injunction-against-safe-act-plaintiff-will-appeal/

Edited March 13, 2013 by 88GW

[HectorBuckBuster]

Wow that sucks

[TPhunter]

This was just the first shot fired, there will be many more to follow. This law suit was described by some as lacking substance and never felt it would go anywhere from the get go.

[WNYBuckHunter]

Ive been reading up on this Schultz lawsuit, and from what I have read, this guy is not a lawyer, and did this on his own. Most of the wording in the lawsuit was blatently faulty and it didnt have a chance in hell of going anywhere. Schultz has filed 100+ suits against the state on different issues and has never won one.

This was not the suit we need to be looking for to do any good. There are a bunch of others coming down the pike that are being filed by legitimate lawyers, groups, etc.