The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post

ChrisWNY · February 27, 2013, 07:27 PM

Except now the burden of proof is on NY State to prove that the AWB and other provisions in the SAFE Act are Constitutional (good luck with that - can't put a round peg in a square hole).

The burden of proof is enormous as the State will have to come up with a pile of evidence to put a stop to the prelim. injunction. The injunction was ordered by a Supreme Court Justice -- the State has until April 29th to respond with proof for WHY the injunction should not be allowed to proceed. Temporary Restraining Orders (TRO's) are notoriously difficult to obtain and case law currently in place is prohibitive of a TRO in most every circumstance. The Supreme Court Justice (Deborah Chimes) could have very well refused to sign the order if the case did not have merit.

February 27, 2013, 07:27 PM	#9
ChrisWNY Member Join Date: August 7, 2010 Location: Western NY Posts: 36	Except now the burden of proof is on NY State to prove that the AWB and other provisions in the SAFE Act are Constitutional (good luck with that - can't put a round peg in a square hole). The burden of proof is enormous as the State will have to come up with a pile of evidence to put a stop to the prelim. injunction. The injunction was ordered by a Supreme Court Justice -- the State has until April 29th to respond with proof for WHY the injunction should not be allowed to proceed. Temporary Restraining Orders (TRO's) are notoriously difficult to obtain and case law currently in place is prohibitive of a TRO in most every circumstance. The Supreme Court Justice (Deborah Chimes) could have very well refused to sign the order if the case did not have merit.