Stamboulieh Law, PLLC
Complaint is here : http://media.wix.com/ugd/c601ae_2fdbaacef3d540a788118c482fcd32e9.pdf
Overview -
Today we filed a Complaint against New York over its Taser ban
December 6, 2016
On behalf of Matthew Avitabile, Firearms Policy Coalition and Firearms Policy Foundation, we sued New York Governor Cuomo, the attorney general of New York, and the Superintendent of States Police, Lt. Col. Beach. We allege as follows:
COUNT I
U.S. CONST., AMEND. II, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
The Defendants prohibit Plaintiffs from acquiring, possessing and using a defensive arm in common use, i.e., a Taser. As such it violates Plaintiffs’ Second Amendment rights.
Defendants’ laws, customs, practices and policies generally banning the acquisition, possession, carrying and use of Tasers and other electronic arms violates the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, facially and as applied against the Plaintiffs in this action, damaging Plaintiffs in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to preliminary and permanent injunctive relief against such laws, customs, policies, and practices.
Complaint is here : http://media.wix.com/ugd/c601ae_2fdbaacef3d540a788118c482fcd32e9.pdf
Overview -
Today we filed a Complaint against New York over its Taser ban
December 6, 2016
On behalf of Matthew Avitabile, Firearms Policy Coalition and Firearms Policy Foundation, we sued New York Governor Cuomo, the attorney general of New York, and the Superintendent of States Police, Lt. Col. Beach. We allege as follows:
COUNT I
U.S. CONST., AMEND. II, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
The Defendants prohibit Plaintiffs from acquiring, possessing and using a defensive arm in common use, i.e., a Taser. As such it violates Plaintiffs’ Second Amendment rights.
Defendants’ laws, customs, practices and policies generally banning the acquisition, possession, carrying and use of Tasers and other electronic arms violates the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, facially and as applied against the Plaintiffs in this action, damaging Plaintiffs in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to preliminary and permanent injunctive relief against such laws, customs, policies, and practices.