{"id":8133,"date":"2013-04-16T19:33:37","date_gmt":"2013-04-16T23:33:37","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.gunpoliticsny.com\/?p=8133"},"modified":"2013-04-16T19:33:37","modified_gmt":"2013-04-16T23:33:37","slug":"state-response-to-request-for-injunction","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.gunpoliticsny.com\/?p=8133","title":{"rendered":"State response to request for injunction"},"content":{"rendered":"

The State has responded<\/a>\u00a0to our request for an injunction<\/a>:<\/p>\n

“… Assistant Attorney General Benjamin Ahlstrom<\/a> wrote in court papers that the claims have no merit. \u00a0He noted the motion was filed late Monday, three months after the law passed, undercutting any argument of “perceived imminent harm.” \u00a0Ahlstrom asked for 60 days to respond to the injunction request, instead of an expedited schedule he said would deprive government lawyers of adequate time to submit papers “in defense of this landmark statute.” \u00a0“The one-sided presentation proposed by plaintiffs is no orderly way to litigate important constitutional issues or to resolve a motion that seeks to enjoin duly enacted state legislation” Ahlstrom wrote …”<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Why would they need 60 days to respond when they could not bother to wait just three days for the bills to age before pushing it through the legislature? \u00a0If the Governor<\/a> can use a message of necessity<\/em> why can’t we?<\/p>\n