I came across this article in a link on one of the aggregate news sites. As I read it I was struck by the quality of writing and the clarity of arguments made.
This is the case of the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Robert Nash and Brandon Koch (petitioners) versus the Superintendent of the NY State Police, the Justice of the NY Supreme Court and the Licensing Officer for Rensselaer County (respondents). Referred to in news articles as the NY Rifle & Pistol Assoc vs New York State.
This is an artful presentation. Just awesome. At the link, the red sidebars mark excerpts from the argument.
Here is an example: "When the state is not rewriting the historical record, it is attacking arguments petitioners did not make, while defending a law it did not pass and licenses it did not issue. The state proceeds as if its law restricts the right to carry only at Yankee Stadium and petitioners demand a right to carry always and everywhere. But very nearly the opposite is true. Petitioners do not challenge any of New York’s many separate laws prohibiting handguns in specific, sensitive places. They contest New York’s effort to treat virtually the entire Empire State as a sensitive place and to prohibit petitioners from carrying their handguns for self-defense virtually anywhere, even (contrary to the state’s repeated claims) in remote “back country” areas."
... Well then!
Here is the link to the article:
https://bearingarms.com/camedwards/2...-beauty-n51030