Federal Court Dismisses Lawsuit Against Unconstitutional NY Safe Act Permit Rules
Here is the problem we face in this country. We have come to the place that the clear wording of the Constitution will not be allowed to be presented in a court of law.
Last week, a federal court dismissed a lawsuit over the state’s restrictive handgun permitting rules that was brought by a county Libertarian Party.
The decision was made by Chief Judge Frank Paul Geraci Jr., a nominee of Barack Hussein Obama Soetoro Sobarkah.
- Activate Your Own Stem Cells & Reverse The Aging Process - Choose "Select & Save" OR Join, Brand Partner & Select Silver To Get Wholesale Prices
- Get your Vitamin B17 & Get 10% Off With Promo Code TIM
- How To Protect Yourself From 5G, EMF & RF Radiation
- Protect Your Income & Retirement Assets With Gold & Silver
- Grab This Bucket Of Heirloom Seeds & Get Free Shipping With Promo Code TIM
- Here’s A Way You Can Stockpile Food For The Future
- Stockpile Your Ammo & Save $15 On Your First Order
- Preparing Also Means Detoxifying – Here’s One Simple Way To Detoxify
The Libertarian Party of Eerie County argued that the state did not possess the authority to require a license to possess a handgun, and they are constitutionally correct. It is a God-given right to both “keep and bear arms.” Therefore, it does not need permission.
However, instead of this seeing the inside of a courtroom where the truth would have been revealed, Judge Geraci dismissed the suit saying, “While NYS’s firearms licensing laws implicate the core Second Amendment right, they do not substantially burden it. The licensing laws place no more than ‘marginal, incremental, or even appreciable restraint on the right to keep and bear arms.’”
But they are a restraint and they do demand recognition of the state, something the Second Amendment is clear when it reads, “shall not be infringed.”
In other words, if you don’t get a permit, you can’t keep and bear the arms you own. So yes, it is a restraint on the right. The judge is an anti-American and anti-Second Amendment judge at this point.
When Edward Garrett moved here from South Dakota, he went about getting a pistol permit.
Three years later, he’s suing New York State in Buffalo federal court.
“Whatever happened to the words, ‘shall not be infringed?’ ” asked Garrett, a Town of Evans resident and the new chairman of the Erie County Libertarian Party.
Garrett is one of eight plaintiffs in a new civil suit challenging the constitutionality of New York’s pistol permit law, a gun control law dating to 1911 and the Tammany Hall days of New York City.
The suit, filed on behalf of the local Libertarian Party, points to the time and cost involved in applying for a permit – they claim it can take up to a year – to suggest that the law is overly burdensome and therefore a violation of the Second Amendment.
The plaintiffs also take issue with the various local governments charged with issuing permits and claim the decision-making on who gets them and who doesn’t can vary greatly from county to county.
“The law is arbitrary in both its scope and authority,” said Richard Cooper, a Nassau County businessman and a former state chairman of the Libertarian Party. “That’s inherently unfair.”
Garrett said the suit is intended, at least in part, to get people talking about the permit process.
While gun confiscation advocates claim that such legislation is constitutional, but like so many things, they never actually appeal to the Constitution nor the words of the founding fathers. They appeal to their case laws for precedent over what is clearly written in the Constitution.
“The Libertarian Party lawsuit is nothing but a rehashing of old and tired arguments that have been long settled by the courts,” said Leah Gunn Barrett, executive director of New Yorkers Against Gun Violence at the time. “The Supreme Court has consistently held that gun regulations are compatible with the Second Amendment.”
While Barrett claimed that the lawsuit was filled with “legal and historical errors,” she failed to cite any. Even more than that, she appealed to courts rather than the words of the Constitution itself to support her anti-American position.
“Keeping concealable guns out of the hands of dangerous people violates no one’s rights but does protect the public,” she said. “Requiring that law enforcement screen applicants for their suitability to carry a loaded firearm in public is entirely reasonable.”
This is irrelevant. No one can actually know the first thing about those who immediately are a danger and those who are not. While I’ll grant some are clearly giving signs that they may be a danger, until they commit a crime or are in the process of committing a crime, under our Constitution, they continue to sustain the rights God has given them.
Why does Ms. Barrett not advocate for the death penalty for “dangerous people,” ie. criminals? It’s because she wants her cake and eat it too. Criminals will not ask permission from the state to exercise their God-given right to keep and bear arms. Law abiding citizens shouldn’t either. However, that point would be so made if Barrett was actually called out publicly, as well as the judge in this case.
There are absolutely not gun regulations that are compatible with the words of the Second Amendment, and that’s why there is absolutely no court ruling that actually uses the words of the Second Amendment when they rule on matters of gun confiscation.
I continue to use the term gun confiscation, because that is exactly where all gun control legislation leads, and what its ultimate goal is.
To demonstrate how lawless statists think, take a listen to New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman.
Schneiderman said that the dismisal was a “victory for sensible gun laws” and added that “common sense guidelines that ensure guns don’t fall into the wrong hands are critical to our public safety.”
Really? Where is “sensible gun laws” in the Second Amendment? Where are “common sense guidelines” in the Second Amendment? Does Schneiderman rationalize such things when it comes to freedom of the press, freedom of speech, troops occupying private property or other parts of the Constitution? I doubt it, but he probably does rationalize away the clear words of the Constitution.
James Ostrowski, a lawyer for the local Libertarian party, told The Buffalo News his clients were not surprised by the ruling and planned to appeal the case to the U.S. 2nd Circuit and the Supreme Court if needed.
James Ostrowski, a lawyer for the local Libertarian party, said that he was not surprised by the ruling and added sarcastically, “There’s a right to bear arms but it’s only a privilege in New York State,” Ostrowski said..”
Article posted with permission from Freedom Outpost