Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

jmg257

(11,996 posts)
Wed Mar 13, 2013, 02:10 PM Mar 2013

Pretty big deal? NYSSC denies SAFE Act injunction...

Last edited Wed Mar 13, 2013, 02:50 PM - Edit history (1)

http://www.news10.com/story/21629395/judge-denies-injunction-of-ny-safe-act-saying-not-a-judicial-issue



Judge denies injunction of NY SAFE Act, saying not a 'judicial issue'
ALBANY, N.Y. - The New York SAFE Act heads to the State Supreme Court Wednesday, a judge denying an application for a preliminary injunction to the controversial act.

State Supreme Court Judge Thomas McNamara has denied the injunction against NY SAFE Act, saying, "Concerns raised should be issues raised in elective process. This is not a judicial issue." The judge says he has to deal with issues of law, not tragedies that have happened prompting SAFE Act, denying the application for preliminary injunction.

The judge heard brief arguments from both the plaintiff and the attorney representing the governor and legislators listed on the complaint before ultimately making his decision.

Opponents were presenting a constitutional challenge asking to motion for a preliminary injunction for taking any further action on the SAFE Act. The plaintiff, Robert Schultz, argues the way Governor Andrew Cuomo passed the act - waving the 3 day aging - is unconstitutional...

The Governor's office is not commenting on the ruling. Shultz says he plans to appeal the case to a higher court..."



There is higher NYS Court of Appeals.
7 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Pretty big deal? NYSSC denies SAFE Act injunction... (Original Post) jmg257 Mar 2013 OP
Not a judicial issue? iiibbb Mar 2013 #1
Not really sure it is... av8r1998 Mar 2013 #3
No ... not a big deal one way or another av8r1998 Mar 2013 #2
Thanks! nt jmg257 Mar 2013 #4
Yeah... a lot of people get this confused... bobclark86 Mar 2013 #5
my bad! av8r1998 Mar 2013 #6
It's all good, man :) bobclark86 Mar 2013 #7
 

av8r1998

(265 posts)
3. Not really sure it is...
Thu Mar 14, 2013, 10:17 AM
Mar 2013

Legislatures generally make their own rules.
As I understand it the plaintiff is arguing that the Legislature violated the Constitution by saying this was an emergency, when it wasn't.
The judge is saying that is a matter of Legislative Authority, not a matter of law for a Judge. (i.e. checks and balances)

If the law's constitutionality were questioned he could rule on that, but it wasn't.

He was asked to rule on whether the legislature acted within their constitutional authority.

In NYS, there is a "waiting period" of some sort as I understand it to hold public hearings, print the bill, etc. which can be waived in an "Emergency". The judge is saying that it's not his job to decide whether or not a mass shooting in another state constitutes an "Emergency"/

 

av8r1998

(265 posts)
2. No ... not a big deal one way or another
Thu Mar 14, 2013, 10:12 AM
Mar 2013

NYS Supreme Court is a trial court.

The Apellate Division of the Supreme Court is the original Appeals Court... IIRC everyone (except a prosecutor) has a right to 1 appeal to the Apellate Division.

NYS Court of Appeals is the Highest Court, but much like SCOTUS, they decide what they hear and what they don't

In any case, the law (and order to show cause) wasn't related to a gun ban... it was related to how the gun ban was passed, which they contend violate's NYS constitution.

This was much to do about nothing as NYS does not have a RKBA enumerated in their constitution as many states do, and the Constitutionality of the law itself was not questioned.

A constitutional challenge to the LAW would be a challenge via the 2nd Amendment to the Federal Constitution in Federal Court.
This has not happened.

bobclark86

(1,415 posts)
5. Yeah... a lot of people get this confused...
Sat Mar 16, 2013, 02:18 PM
Mar 2013

A state supreme court is what other places call a county court -- they're elected by the local county populations and handle things like divorce, felonies, etc. From there, an appeal goes to the 13 appellate districts, then the four appellate divisions, and then the CoA.

NY likes to keep us on our toes .

bobclark86

(1,415 posts)
7. It's all good, man :)
Sat Mar 16, 2013, 02:29 PM
Mar 2013

I forgot to mention villages can have their own courts inside of towns (which often also have their own courts). Cities have their own courts completely separate from county courts (and on the same level... they're both considered state supreme courts, actually, and unlike village and town courts, usually hear their own felony cases...)

There's a reason I'm not a lawyer: I'd get lost figuring which one of the 60-some supreme courts and hundreds of town, village and city courts I would go to on a given day, haha.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control & RKBA»Pretty big deal? NYSSC de...