"14th Amendment: Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."So, this statute violates two parts of the 14th Amendment, in that they are abridging the rights of citizens (rights which already were declared not to be infringed) and that they are depriving people of property without due process by forcing them to sell property with an ex post facto ban.
Add in an exemption for police in the ban and they have denied people equal protection under the law.
So this new law also violates the 14th Amendment.
Thanks Rochester for gathering this info- I’m pretty shook about the idea that our govenrment has been tryign to blatantly remove our constitutional rights, and religiosu freedoms over hte past 4 years, and when NY’s gov did what he did- it was quite unnerving to say the least- I truyl hope the law will prevail through suits- that woudl be the best result for everyone, and hopefulyl it can go this way-
[[No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;]]
My concern with hte wahy this is written, is this, does the first sentence about abridgign include the clause of the secodn sentence “Without due process’? Or does it end with a difinitive ‘shall not ‘Abridge’- period.? If thel atter, then it seems to me we stand a good chance- if it includes the clause of the secodn sentence, (or raTHER the that it includes the wording of hte secodn sentence0- ‘withotu due process’ then I think it’s not as strong a case asgaisnt hte government
The supreme court rukled that states can’t ban guns (not sure the exact ruling o nthat- perhaps it was just for handguns- ) perhaps htis hsoudl be worked into the argument too- not sure it’s relevent ot the issue that NY caused, but it might-
[[Add in an exemption for police in the ban and they have denied people equal protection under the law.]]
This I woudl think woudl be a very strong argument- that the state is attemtpting not to regulate guns, but to deny ordinary citizens the right to ADEQUATE self defense- (there are some dolts in congress o nthe left declaring that ‘we don’t need more than 2-4 shots per gun’ but I’m not sure hwo appointed thsoe dolts as my conscience and and made htem my decision maker when I’m perfectly capable of deciding for myself how many bullets I want loaded in my gun IF the situation ever arose that I needed to protect myself-
IF secret service get to use large capacity cartridges to protect washington elites, and retired elites, then what gives them the right to dictate I can’t do likewise? Are we less important? Do they not care that we coudl easily run out of ammo with small amounts of ammo loaded and coudl be murdered?
I see the left keeps mentioning the rare cases of school shootings as ‘justification for’ gun bans, however, I never see them mention how many children were ifnact saved via guns- perhaps hte lawyer shoudl somehow work these stats into the argument- I dunno-
The fact is that law abiding citizens are being put in danger by our govenrment simply because a few crazy peopel snappend in rare cases, and they are demanding that we be less protected- and apaprentl the left doesn’t care that we will be helpless agaisnt ARMED and dangerous criminals- We have a basic right to protect ourselves usign EFFECTIVE means of self protection- the left has demanded that we we rely on INNEFECTIVE means (howe many people called 911 and were mrudered waitign for hte polcie to show up? Even just one is too many when the left ASSURED us that all we had to do is rely on ther police for our protection- the left lied, peopel died