\n<\/p>\n
A federal judge has ruled against Attorney General Letitia James and other New York officials, rejecting their motion to dismiss a constitutional challenge to the state\u2019s ban on bulletproof vests and protective body armor.\u00a0<\/p>\n
U.S. District Court Judge John Sinatra Jr. affirmed plaintiffs standing to sue the state over the restrictions.<\/p>\n
\u201cHere, plaintiffs have demonstrated an injury in fact\u2026They allege an intention to engage in a course of conduct arguably protected by the Second Amendment but proscribed by New York law,\u201d Sinatra wrote in a 19-page ruling.<\/p>\n
While New York is no stranger to violating Second Amendment rights under the guise of \u201cpublic safety,\u201d the body armor ban looks particularly bad for the state as armor can only be used as a defensive measure for protecting life but not as a weapon. In fact, in the state\u2019s own words, body armor is defined as \u201cany product that is a personal protective body covering intended to protect against gunfire, regardless of whether such product is to be worn alone or is sold as a complement to another product or garment.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n
If there was ever any question about whether the anti-Second Amendment agenda was about public safety or public vulnerability and defenselessness, this issue puts that debate to rest.<\/p>\n
The current ban does not affect those considered \u2018grandfathered\u2019 in, having purchased body armor before the restrictions. I\u2019m sure New York didn\u2019t want the legal headache of an attempted confiscation. By the way, if buying used or via cash, how would the state know when an individual made their purchase? Of course, the law does not apply to law enforcement officials either. There are actually quite a few people the law doesn\u2019t apply to, and if you\u2019d like to know whose life the state of New York values more than yours, that list can be found here<\/a>.<\/p>\n Firearms Policy Coalition filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court in Buffalo alleging that the restrictions violate the Second Amendment rights of multiple defendants represented by the group. Plaintiffs in the lawsuit, including New Yorkers who want to purchase body armor, argue that they have a \u201cfundamental, constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms, including body armor.\u201d Additionally, they seek a permanent injunction to block any enforcement of the ban while contested.<\/p>\n The body armor ban, approved by New York lawmakers as part of a gun control package that pushed through the Democratic-controlled Legislature following the landmark U.S. Supreme Court Bruen decision in 2022, is a contemptuous move considering instructions laid out by the high court for handling matters related to the Second Amendment. Plaintiffs\u2019 attorneys cite a \u201cdeeply rooted tradition of keeping and wearing armor in America\u201d and a lack of \u201chistorical restrictions,\u201d arguments which quote and are perfectly aligned with Bruen.\u00a0<\/p>\n Firearms Policy Coalition president, Brandon Combs, says the lawsuit is aimed at, \u201cteaching New York another lesson about constitutionally protected rights.\u201d<\/p>\n New York has become a frequent flyer for lawsuits filed by the FPC and other Second Amendment groups because of the state\u2019s eagerness to deprive law-abiding citizens of their constitutional rights. While I am thankful for the work these groups do to fight for the rights of Americans across the country, I\u2019ve become increasingly curious as to whether or not lawmakers can be found in contempt of the Supreme Court of the United States for what seems like brazen defiance to their rulings and instructions. There is no rule of law if there are no consequences for violating those laws.\u00a0<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n
![<\/a><\/div>\nA federal judge has ruled against Attorney General Letitia James and other New York officials, rejecting their motion to dismiss a constitutional challenge to the state\u2019s ban on bulletproof vests and protective body armor.\u00a0<\/p>\nU.S. District Court Judge John Sinatra Jr. affirmed plaintiffs standing to sue the state over the restrictions.<\/p>\n\u201cHere, plaintiffs have demonstrated an injury in fact\u2026They allege an intention to engage in a course of conduct arguably protected by the Second Amendment but proscribed by New York law,\u201d Sinatra wrote in a 19-page ruling.<\/p>\nWhile New York is no stranger to violating Second Amendment rights under the guise of \u201cpublic safety,\u201d the body armor ban looks particularly bad for the state as armor can only be used as a defensive measure for protecting life but not as a weapon. In fact, in the state\u2019s own words, body armor is defined as \u201cany product that is a personal protective body covering intended to protect against gunfire, regardless of whether such product is to be worn alone or is sold as a complement to another product or garment.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\nIf there was ever any question about whether the anti-Second Amendment agenda was about public safety or public vulnerability and defenselessness, this issue puts that debate to rest.<\/p>\nThe current ban does not affect those considered \u2018grandfathered\u2019 in, having purchased body armor before the restrictions. I\u2019m sure New York didn\u2019t want the legal headache of an attempted confiscation. By the way, if buying used or via cash, how would the state know when an individual made their purchase? Of course, the law does not apply to law enforcement officials either. There are actually quite a few people the law doesn\u2019t apply to, and if you\u2019d like to know whose life the state of New York values more than yours, that list can be found here<\/a>.<\/p>\nFirearms Policy Coalition filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court in Buffalo alleging that the restrictions violate the Second Amendment rights of multiple defendants represented by the group. Plaintiffs in the lawsuit, including New Yorkers who want to purchase body armor, argue that they have a \u201cfundamental, constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms, including body armor.\u201d Additionally, they seek a permanent injunction to block any enforcement of the ban while contested.<\/p>\nThe body armor ban, approved by New York lawmakers as part of a gun control package that pushed through the Democratic-controlled Legislature following the landmark U.S. Supreme Court Bruen decision in 2022, is a contemptuous move considering instructions laid out by the high court for handling matters related to the Second Amendment. Plaintiffs\u2019 attorneys cite a \u201cdeeply rooted tradition of keeping and wearing armor in America\u201d and a lack of \u201chistorical restrictions,\u201d arguments which quote and are perfectly aligned with Bruen.\u00a0<\/p>\nFirearms Policy Coalition president, Brandon Combs, says the lawsuit is aimed at, \u201cteaching New York another lesson about constitutionally protected rights.\u201d<\/p>\nNew York has become a frequent flyer for lawsuits filed by the FPC and other Second Amendment groups because of the state\u2019s eagerness to deprive law-abiding citizens of their constitutional rights. While I am thankful for the work these groups do to fight for the rights of Americans across the country, I\u2019ve become increasingly curious as to whether or not lawmakers can be found in contempt of the Supreme Court of the United States for what seems like brazen defiance to their rulings and instructions. There is no rule of law if there are no consequences for violating those laws.\u00a0<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n\nSource link <\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"A federal judge has ruled against Attorney General Letitia James and other New York officials, rejecting their motion to dismiss a constitutional challenge to the state\u2019s ban on bulletproof vests and protective body armor.\u00a0 U.S. District Court Judge John Sinatra Jr. affirmed plaintiffs standing to sue the state over the restrictions. \u201cHere, plaintiffs have demonstrated […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":4209,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-4208","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-reviews"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/gunsandpride.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4208","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/gunsandpride.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/gunsandpride.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gunsandpride.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gunsandpride.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=4208"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/gunsandpride.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4208\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gunsandpride.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/4209"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/gunsandpride.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=4208"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gunsandpride.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=4208"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gunsandpride.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=4208"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}](\"https:\/\/cdn0.thetruthaboutguns.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/03\/AGILE-IIIA-Premier-Body-Armor.jpeg\"){kind=link}