Another civil rights lawsuit

It pleases me to see New York’s Governor Cuomo sued by civil rights group:

“The cartridge limit is arbitrary and serves no useful purpose other than to frustrate, and perhaps entrap, law abiding citizens who own firearms with standard capacity magazines that were designed to hold more than seven rounds,” said SAF Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb, who founded the organization in 1974 and watched it grow to well over a half-million members.

“Several top law enforcement officials have already publicly stated they will not enforce provisions of this law, yet Gov. Cuomo and Supt. D’Amico are pushing ahead,” Gottlieb claims.

“The law is contradictory, in that it is legal in New York to possess magazines that hold up to ten cartridges,” Gottlieb said. “But the SAFE Act limits people to seven rounds, with some narrow exceptions. This amounts to virtual entrapment for anyone who loads more than seven rounds in a magazine for self-defense purposes.

“Magazines that hold ten or more rounds are in common use all over the country,” Gottlieb concluded. “This arbitrary limit essentially penalizes law abiding citizens for exercising their right of self-defense, and that cannot be allowed to stand.”

The Second Amendment Foundation’s media release is here. Donate to SAF here.

We are making progress. It’s slow and expensive but one lawsuit at a time we are putting these want-to-be tyrants in their place.


4 thoughts on “Another civil rights lawsuit

  1. I’m still celebrating the “gun rights organizations” entering this new territory, this Undiscovered Country, of talking about the right to self defense rather than being limited to sportsmen and hunters. Actually acting on it in a lawsuit is a huge bonus.

    Hmm. Imagine a column like “Armed Citizen” covering armed confrontations between law abiding citizens and rogue cops or politicians;
    “Mayor Joe Schmoe was accustomed to getting away with his egregious corruption and repeated Oath violations. He’d always had Judge Roe, the majority Party, the Police Chief and the AG on his side after all, but this time things would be different…”

    Or is it still too “politically incorrect” to imagine that corruption, lies and repeated violations of citizens’ rights by those specifically charged with protecting rights should have dire, personal consequences for the perpetrators?

    • That bit about not focusing attention on hunting is really important. It is one thing for the gun grabbers to pretend it’s about hunting — they are lying for their own nefarious purposes. But for people who claim to support gun rights to blather about hunting is just utter stupidity.

  2. We won’t win until there are personal penalties for politicians who enact unconstitutional laws and require WE THE PEOPLE to jeopardize our liberty and expend our resources to fight off those encroachments of our liberty. They have the unlimited resources of the state coffers to use in infringement and suffer no consequence for doing so, at least most of the time. And I don’t regard being kicked out of office while retaining a life-time pension as a consequence. At least in Florida we have instituted a limited personal penalty for infringement by the pols. It seems to have helped.

Comments are closed.