As a gun shop owner, retired police officer and state trooper, life member of the NRA, all I can say is



How many more lawsuits can we get against them?  


Joining the NYSRPA now and sending a donation.

awesome

http://www.wallkillrodandgun.com/sclevnts.htm
 

Thanks for hanging with us!

OH YEAH!!!

LET'S GET 'EM!!!

I collected donations of $80.00 from a few people at work to send to NYSRPA.
I will add to that from myself also.

Bill

THIS IS GREAT STUFF
WORK TO MAKE THEM COWER

Any word when the legal fund donation will be up on the site?  I plan on donating quite a bit myself, and rallying friends and co-workers as well.

Donate to NYSRPA and put LDF in the memo field.

This is all from NYFirearms


[QUOTE=Maxb49;390943]Hello everyone!

I decided to join this forum because many people are interested in, and a few are perplexed, by the case currently underway here in Buffalo. I am here to answer any questions you have about the lawsuit, relay important developments, and dispel any misconceptions. I have the inside track on this case and I can fill you in why many decisions were made the way they were made.

Before we go any further, I would like to address a few issues:

1. The tin foil hat crowd who believes that Tresmond is working with Cuomo to deliberately lose the lawsuit needs to get that idea out of their head immediately. Mr. Tresmond, a veteran of the US Navy and a lifelong gun owner, is doing no such thing.

2. Tresmond was approached by a group of long standing clients who expressed serious concerns over how the NY SAFE Act was going to affect them. Being a concerned civil rights attorney, he initially set out to do what you would expect a good and ethical lawyer to do - defend the rights of his clients. When they realized how many millions of New Yorkers have been affected by this law and how many people were afraid of prosecution, they (Tresmond and his staff) sent out a message for anyone who felt that they were being adversely affected by the law. They simply wanted to offer protection and assistance to innocent people who were being vilified by New York's government.

3. The initial post, which was done by an assistant, made a slight mistake in the announcement of the case being an ex post facto challenge to the bill. While there is a case that would actually support the idea of a certain form of an ex post facto challenge, this is not at all part of the lawsuit.

4. This case was commenced an Article 78 Special Proceeding to avoid the problem of collateral estoppel (issue preclusion). In other words, this type of proceeding was chosen so that if Tresmond loses, even on the merits, the loss is localized and will not prevent future challenges to the bill. The folks working on this case are practicing attorneys and Constitutional scholars from around the country. They are not an special interest group, and they are not trying to diminish the good efforts of other gun rights groups to put an end to this anti-Constitutional rampage.

7. The legal team covered the filing fee. They never requested a single donation.


If you have any other questions, feel free to ask. I will try my best to answer them. If I don't have the answer, I'll ask the legal team.[/QUOTE]


[QUOTE=Maxb49;391049]The Tresmond case has the support of attorneys and professors from throughout New York State and America. There are Harvard educated Constitutional scholars assisting Mr. Tresmond in his approach, as well as other attorneys with impeccable backgrounds from other prestigious universities and law firms. Mr. Tresmond is well respected in Buffalo as an attorney who has defended his clients' rights. For years he defended the rights of abused and neglected children.

The attorneys and support staff on this case wish to maintain a low profile due to the highly sensitive nature of the case. They have not been identified because they, including Tresmond, wanted to keep the focus on taking out the law. The focus of the case was always about voiding an unconstitutional law, not making a profit or a name for anyone. The attorneys and academics have more access to resources and information for the upcoming memorandum of law, hearings, trials, etc. if they maintain there anonymity. So, it's understandable that some may think this is one person handling this case alone. However, that impression simply isn't the reality.

It's also important to note that so far, there is one and only one lawsuit against the SAFE Act. That's here in Erie County. The phones are still ringing nonstop, with a great majority of the people calling in to voice their support from downstate. It's our position that if other people want to hire lawyers to file lawsuits, that's great. Tresmond and the NYSRPA both did the right thing by avoiding federal court. This gets things cleared up at the trial level within the next few months rather than the next few years.

As far as costs go, the total cost has been the filing fees. The team best able to work anonymously; in doing so, they are not precluded or denied access to vast bodies of legal resources. In remaining unidentified, they're able to interview and obtain inside information that they otherwise couldn't get.

The email response is in the tens of thousands. There is simply no way everyone will be able to get a personal response, as much as Tresmond and the others wish to reply.

And, as far as hearing goes, the New York State Attorney General apparently didn't feel comfortable going to court and asking for a summary dismissal on the 21st. The case obviously created a larger challenge for the State than they expected. It's also important to note that the New York Attorney General has been very cordial and professional in this matter. In this respect, gun owners are much better off with a respected attorney like Tresmond arguing the case than an abrasive unknown person from out of town whom the courts and opposing parties may view as hostile. Hostility doesn't win cases. Good arguments do.[/QUOTE]


[QUOTE=Maxb49;391054]Sure, I can give you some insight here.

Erie County SCOPE has been a great help. They have supported Mr. Tresmond in garnering support for the action. He also has spoken to the group and will keep them personally updated as things develop. Erie County SCOPE extended their help almost immediately after the case was announced, Erie County Sherrif Tim Howard has also been in contact, as have other sheriffs and law enforcement agents around the state.

For that matter, the office has been contacted by assistant district attorneys, US Customs and Border Protection Officers, federal law enforcement agencies and other law enforcement personnelk requesting to be a part of this case. So, that should give you a picture of how much support the Buffalo lawsuit really has as opposed to what it may seem like from the limited perspective of Internet information.

As far as the attorneys, a number of them are from Western New York. Others are from Albany, New York City, Long Island, and other parts of the state. Others are from Chicago, Boston, Washington D.C., and universities throughout the country. There have already been Several coordinated meetings of everyone involved.

The team is already compiling a cache of expert witnesses, including gunsmiths, gun dealers, and other experts to testify in court. I don't think anyone expected this much, this quickly, but everyone has been working day and night so it's nice to see things come together.[/QUOTE]

Agreed!

edit: found what i was looking for...sry!

Good luck, fellas.  Illinois is always seemingly under the same threat of similar ludicrous gun bans unfortunately.

I'm In.

http://www.nysrpa-pvf.org/

Donation sent.

Let loose the dogs of war!

became a team member here yesterday after I saw ARFcom was taking a lead in this battle.  Thank you! keep it up guys

Welcome aboard...  See u in Team Member Forum.  Newbies bring the donuts!

How about all NY gun owners buy their ammo in other states? The sales tax revenue to NY would shrink, and coumo would have less to spend on his socialist agenda. I drive down to PA, where a background check isn't needed to buy 22 shells. Long guns can also be purchased in other states, at least PA. If folks live further away from another state, they can car pool on weekends to make ammo runs. Of course, it would help if ammo was actually available on store shelves!
Can't wait until spring, we are going to sell our home and leave NY!

Can somebody familiar with the lawsuit explain if this is true or not?



That is from an article on NRO here.

Outstanding article.  Thanks for linking it.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/es/content/“dick-act-1902”

Anybody even heard of this?  Please enlighten me.  I looked in the Library of Congress, IT IS THERE!

Was drafted and passed June 28th of 1902 in Brooklyn, NY.

Could this be more 'ammo' for the pending lawsuits?

I was told that NYS made an offer- we keep our mags of any size, but no more than 7 rounds loaded- but the judge would not allow a plea and ordered the case to go forward.

No idea if, or what part, is actually true, just a gun store story.

It's pretty much useless.   See this for a summary:  http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/dickact.asp

Even if it were legally valuable, it's universally ignored, just like the Slaughterhouse case.  Nobody is going to revisit it with any success.

Click here and put LDF in the 3rd address line.



 

If true, they (NYS) still do not get it.

Trying to wrap my head around this.  I see ways this can be considered good, and of course bad.  

Legal experts, is this good or bad? Or just standard procedure?

Are magpul AFG's considered forgrips? and are they illegal in NY and Connecticut now?

You answered your question

AFG® - Angled Fore Grip

They are not legal on semi-auto rifles that accept detachable magazines purchased after 1-15-13

If it's designed for ergonomics and comfort, then it's illegal.  Pretty simple.  NY is against ergonomics.

Anything new?  Any news?

Both sides are due in court Sept. 12.        
 

August 23, 2013 Update: Senator Kathy Marchione files a Amicus Curiae in support of our lawsuit.

Today is the day!  Expecting yet another delay from New York State but hoping for the best.



Tresmond has a conference on Monday, September 16th.



 

Waiting for an update myself

NYS should have a recall election just like CO.  How do we get it on the ballot?

Probably by bribing the politicians to vote for a recall initiative, so then we can recall their corrupt asses.

Love to hear why?  Did the State come up with some lame ass excuse?



I see no reason to think this is nothing more than a delay tactic on their part to have as much of this "law" fully take effect before it reaches the court.



Fucking pussies, anyone who's read the state briefs knows full well they're going to have their asses handed to them, so it's delay, delay, delay.



 

Postponements and delays aren't always bad. In fact it could be a positive development.  We just need to sit tight and wait for the fat lady to sing.

Tresmond
UPDATE !!
http://www.nyfirearms.com/forums/laws-politics/61266-tresmond-lawsuit-update-dywinski-9-17-13-a.html

Just so there is no confusion that is an update for the Tresmond Dywinski NY state court case and not the federal NYSRPA U.S. District court case.



 

Thank you sir, for the added clarification.

So if I am reading it right, if they win this, we'll be back to preban stuff being OK and no registration required?

but the ammo portion will be attacked separately?

The good news is that our good news is SO good, we can't tell you about it.

Well we could but than we'd have to kill ya which wouldn't be so good for you.



 

Update at the NYSRPA site

Update from TK.



November 25, 2013

 


 As a method of providing an update on our fight to overturn New York’s
SAFE Act ("the Act”), we are providing this letter, in "Q and A” form,
with the answers to questions you might have concerning the case.


 


Q: What is the current status of the proceedings in the New York action?


As you are aware, in the beginning of the case, we moved for a preliminary
injunction. In this motion, we ask the Court to stop the provisions of
the SAFE Act from taking effect while the lawsuit is ongoing. In
particular, we are seeking the court to enjoin the enforcement of the
following provisions of the law:


1. The section making it unlawful to possess an ammunition feeding device containing more than seven rounds of ammunition.



2. The sections making it unlawful to possess, transport, ship, or
dispose of, a large capacity ammunition feeding device (we are
alternatively seeking to enjoin these


provisions as applied to any such device manufactured before September 13, 1994).



3. Certain unintelligible portions of the section making it unlawful to
possess a large capacity ammunition feeding device (if the court does
not enjoin the entire section).


4. The sections which make it
unlawful to possess a device that can be readily restored or converted
to accept more than ten rounds of ammunition.”


5. The sections which
make it unlawful to possess a device that can be readily restored or
converted to accept more than ten rounds of ammunition, or a device that
holds more than ten rounds as applied to tubular magazines.


6. The
sections which define an "assault weapon” in part as certain rifles and
shotguns as having a folding or telescoping stock, a pistol grip that
protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon, or a thumbhole
stock.


7. The sections which define an "assault weapon” as a
semiautomatic shotgun with a fixed magazine capacity in excess of seven
rounds or an ability to accept a detachable


magazine.


 


The
Defendants have opposed our Motion for Preliminary Injunction and have
filed their own Motion to Dismiss and for Summary Judgment, which asks
the Court to enter judgment determining that the SAFE Act is valid. In
response to the State’s Motion for Summary Judgment, we have filed our
own Motion for Summary Judgment. The briefing on these motions (which
has been extensive) is complete.


 


Q: What will happen next?


Since briefing is complete, we believe the Court will schedule an oral
argument on the motions. Normally, for cases involving these
controversial of issues, courts will hold an oral argument, although the
Court is not required to do so; as the issues involved in the motions
are purely legal, no testimony is required and the Court may just rule
on the papers that have been filed. We do not know, however, if the
Court will have a hearing and when it will happen. The procedural rules
do not require the Court either to set a hearing or to decide the motion
within a specified amount of time. The time in which a court sets a
motion for hearing and issues a decision on a matter is impacted by
several factors, such as the judge’s schedule, pressing criminal trials,
and the complexity of the issues involved. Every judge handles his or
her caseload differently. Given the issues involved, we believe the
Court will do its best to hear and decide the motions as quickly as
possible, but ultimately we have no control over that time frame. We
have conveyed to the Court, and will continue to convey to the Court,
our desire to move this matter along as quickly as possible.


 



Q: Will we get relief before January 15, 2014, the effective date of the
requirement that all previously grandfathered magazines of more than 10
rounds must be discarded or sold out of state?


Possibly, but
unlikely. While we understand that this portion of the law is a source
of particular anger with members, the chance of the Court ruling to
strike down or otherwise enjoin the law before that date really depends
on how quickly the Court decides to either hold a hearing on our motion
for preliminary injunction or issue a decision. As mentioned earlier,
the Court has almost complete control over its schedule. As
described above, there are three motions pending: our Motion for
Preliminary Injunction, Defendants Motion to Dismiss and for Summary
Judgment, and our own Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court may rule on
these motions at the same time, or it may rule on them separately.


 



The Motion for Preliminary Injunction asks the Court to enjoin, or
stop, the enforcement of certain provisions of the Act while the lawsuit
is ongoing. Concerning this motion, the Court has two options: (1) It
can grant (either in whole or in part) our preliminary injunction
request, which would stop the provisions described above from being
enforced while the lawsuit is ongoing; or (2) It can deny our
preliminary injunction request, which would not stop the provisions
described above from being enforced while the lawsuit is ongoing. The
second and third motions are the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss or for
Summary Judgment and our own Motion for Summary Judgment. If the Court
grants the State’s motion in its entirety, then the case will be
dismissed in favor of the Defendants. Similarly, if the Court grants our
own Motion for Summary Judgment, then judgment will enter in favor of
the plaintiffs. If the Court grants part of the Defendants’ motion, than
the case will be dismissed in favor of the Defendants as to those parts
of the law upon which the Court grants the motion. The same holds true,
obviously, if the Court grants the Plaintiffs’ Motion in part. If the
Court denies the motions in their entirety, then the case would continue
to proceed as it is styled with all of our claims intact.


 



Given the complexity of the issues raised in the motions and the current
caseload of the Court, it is unlikely (but not impossible) that the
Court will rule on our motion for preliminary injunction before January
15. We are sending a letter to the Court trying to get the Court to
expedite a hearing on our preliminary injunction motion to stop the
enforcement of the law, but it is unlikely that the Court will take
action before the January 15, date.


 


Q: How is this lawsuit affected by other lawsuits challenging the NY law?



Many times when a law is enacted that infringes core rights, like the
Act, there are multiple lawsuits filed seeking to stop the law from
taking effect or otherwise being enforced. Sometimes, these actions
proceed in harmony with each other; most times, they do not. For
example, there have been other lawsuits filed which challenge the SAFE
Act on various grounds that we may or may not have raised in our
lawsuit. One suit has challenged the emergency manner in which the SAFE
Act was


adopted. This was a potential basis for challenging the law
that we considered, but rejected, at the onset of this litigation: our
analysis and experience showed that courts do not get involved with the
merits of "emergency” determinations, and have historically taken a
completely permissive attitude towards legislative circumvention of
these aging requirements. We therefore believe that a challenge on this
basis would be quickly rejected (as the one brought by Robert Schulz on
this same basis has


been), would detract from the strong arguments we have prepared, and could cause us to lose credibility with the court.


 



We believe that the lawsuit we have brought is well-crafted, and that
the record supports the relief we are seeking. This was the product of a
lengthy, deliberative process in which we analyzed many different
approaches. Having a law invalidated is not an easy thing to accomplish,
and we believe that the approach we have adopted and implemented gives
us the best chance of success. This may be different from the approach
taken by plaintiffs in other lawsuits, but it is the one that we



believe gives us the greatest chance of prevailing in the end. We hope
this gives you an accurate picture of where things currently stand in
this lawsuit. If


you have follow up questions about any of the
matters discussed in this letter, or the case in general, please do not
hesitate to contact us. We welcome your call.


 


Thank you.







Cogito ergo sum armati

Critique of ruling is up at NYSRPA site