NY SAFE Act Suit Filed

[mbopp]

http://www.nysrpa.org/

It took a bit longer than expected, but I think they wanted to be sure the legal I's were dotted and T's crossed.....

 

[Alfonse99]

Good!

 

[22-rimfire]

Hope they can afford the fight. It is for a good cause. But law suits are expensive.

 

[Tom from WNY]

There comes a time when you do not have a choice

It is now!

 

[MagnumDweeb]

Eh another $25 I'm going to have to donate. Next week, the fiancee noticed my recent spat of donations. These things cost money folks, think of it as an investment. If we succeed at establish 10 round limits as the minimum and protecting cosmetic features on a rifle then we've won a significant battle, we might not do away with magazine bans entirely but we might establish a standard of what is reasonably protected nationally as a minimum.

 

[flphotog]

Not sure if it's the same law suit, but the NRA has also filed suit in federal court.

 

[58limited]

I just donated $50 to the legal defense fund. Good luck to all of you behind the Iron Curtain in New York State.

 

[scaatylobo]

If your not part of the solution -

- then your part of the problem.

I much rather prefer to send in a few bucks now,than to pay the fine or bail money for a 'glitch' in the law that I did not foresee.

I am giving till its hurts,after all its a charity that can mean freedom to our future.

 

[gbran]

They need to expand their suit to include much or most of the Sulivan Act also.

 

[NY'er]

MagnumDweeb, what's legally permitted nationally is the STANDARD CAPACITY 30 round magazines that are included as standard OEM magazines included with every new rifle sold almost everywhere else- in those states who's rights have not already been infringed for the past 19 years. Everyone dealt with paying triple for their mags because it wasn't worth the fight and we were lulled into the assumption that the 94 bans were the last bans we'd ever have to deal with. Well guess what? They were patient but they overreached and now that we have firmer grounds to stand on and the fight is now on in the courts we should accept nothing less than the same lack of restrictions as everyone else. And that goes for making NY go shall-issue for CCW as well!

 

[SaxonPig]

CA's restrictive laws have been upheld several times in the courts. How should we expect a different outcome?

 

[gbran]

CA's restrictive laws have been upheld several times in the courts. How should we expect a different outcome?

Since McDonald, incorporation?

 

[BryanDavis]

CA's restrictive laws have been upheld several times in the courts. How should we expect a different outcome?

Really? By the current SCOTUS?

Can you cite a case I can look up?

Not trying to be an assh*** here, honestly want to know.