She told us, ‘Do not bring the Second Amendment into this courtroom. It doesn’t exist here. So you can’t argue Second Amendment. This is New York.'
In point of fact, deprivation of rights under color of law is a Federal crime. The statute is confusing in its wording, so perhaps she has a defense in claiming that she was not motivated by prejudice (but would equally deny that right to everyone, under color of law). She ought to be arrested and charged, though, and obligated to make that defense as a former judge to a jury of her peers— her fellow citizens, I mean, not legal elites.
Hawaii is trying the same thing. It’s a sort of small scale secession, refusing to be bound by the parts of the Constitution that they disapprove of existing.
5 comments:
Pretty awful. The appeal will be interesting.
It is, however, a tacit admission that the Second Amendment does protect individual gun rights, not just a militia, as was previously argued. The idea has penetrated, so now denial is the only recourse.
The appeal should be, since SCOTUS decided Bruen precisely to apply the Second Amendment to a New York law. Her contention is in direct opposition to the high court’s holding.
But he’ll probably be kept in prison on Rikers Island during his appeals. He could end up doing years there before it is resolved.
I suppose we can take some comfort in that, AVI.
One could only imagine the justified outcry on both sides of the aisle if a judge somewhere said that "The Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments do not exist in this state."
Of course, that's not likely to happen anytime soon (barring a severe self-fulfilling prophecy), but the point still stands.
Post a Comment