Nice
Nice
Saved you a click:
This Court is not unmindful of the dangers firearms may pose when possessed in the hands of a person suffering a mental illness, harboring a criminal intent, or both. However, when viewed objectively, CPLR §63-a’s goal of removing weapons from the otherwise lawful possession of them by their owners, without adequate constitutional safeguards, cannot be [*8]condoned by this Court.
While some may advocate that “the ends justify the means” in support of §63-a, where those means violate a fundamental right under our Bill of Rights to achieve their ends, then the law, on it’s face, cannot stand.
Therefore, the “Temporary Extreme Risk Protection Order” (TERPO) and “Extreme Risk Protection Order” (ERPO) are deemed to be unconstitutional by this Court as CPLR Article 63-a is presently drafted. It can not be stated clearly enough that the Second Amendment is not a second class right, nor should it ever be treated as such.
Saved you a click:
>
This Court is not unmindful of the dangers firearms may pose when possessed in the hands of a person suffering a mental illness, harboring a criminal intent, or both. However, when viewed objectively, CPLR §63-a’s goal of removing weapons from the otherwise lawful possession of them by their owners, without adequate constitutional safeguards, cannot be [*8]condoned by this Court.
>
While some may advocate that “the ends justify the means” in support of §63-a, where those means violate a fundamental right under our Bill of Rights to achieve their ends, then the law, on it’s face, cannot stand.
>
Therefore, the “Temporary Extreme Risk Protection Order” (TERPO) and “Extreme Risk Protection Order” (ERPO) are deemed to be unconstitutional by this Court as CPLR Article 63-a is presently drafted. ***It can not be stated clearly enough that the Second Amendment is not a second class right, nor should it ever be treated as such.***
(post is archived)