Extreme conservative/ 2nd. Amendment zealot.
Joined:
Jan 2013
Posts:
2493
EE: 0% (0)
NY, USA
I hope we all get Winning AIDS from this. 
|
Award: 24/365 Most likely to be an appendix.
"Arfcom makes me happy. Arfcom is like a giant, heavily armed, dysfunctional family that smells like cheetos and gun oil." - Undefined
"Arfcom makes me happy. Arfcom is like a giant, heavily armed, dysfunctional family that smells like cheetos and gun oil." - Undefined
|
I use to get like that when I was a teenager. |
New York has been filed.
In Albany Federal District Court. ANDREW M. CUOMO, in his Official) Capacity as Governor of the State of New) York, ERIC SCHNEIDERMAN, in his ) Official Capacity as Attorney General of ) New York and LT. COL. GEORGE ) BEACH in his Official Capacity as ) Superintendent of the New York State Police) ) Defendants. ) I won't have a "filed" copy of the complaint until Monday, but the defendants are listed above. |
Vote for me for NRA Board of Director in 2017!
https://www.facebook.com/stambo4nra/
https://www.facebook.com/stambo4nra/
|
Originally Posted By NoloContendere:
New York has been filed.
In Albany Federal District Court. ANDREW M. CUOMO, in his Official) Capacity as Governor of the State of New) York, ERIC SCHNEIDERMAN, in his ) Official Capacity as Attorney General of ) New York and LT. COL. GEORGE ) BEACH in his Official Capacity as ) Superintendent of the New York State Police) ) Defendants. ) I won't have a "filed" copy of the complaint until Monday, but the defendants are listed above. Merry Christmas Cuomo..... And a happy fuck you! 
|
-Certain misery is better than the misery of uncertainty-
|
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. |
Vote for me for NRA Board of Director in 2017!
https://www.facebook.com/stambo4nra/
https://www.facebook.com/stambo4nra/
|
Originally Posted By NoloContendere:
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 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. Fixed it for ya |
-Certain misery is better than the misery of uncertainty-
|
Originally Posted By Jmo371:
this should be a slam dunk...SCOTUS ruled on it.... I predict they just regulate them and somehow add them to our pistol permits. How about a case where counties get smacked down for 2 year waits to turn in a pistol permit app? one at a time! I should have the complaint ready for posting sometime later today. They are processing everything now. |
Vote for me for NRA Board of Director in 2017!
https://www.facebook.com/stambo4nra/
https://www.facebook.com/stambo4nra/
|
Originally Posted By Sdsquad1:
If we win this is there a possibility that the safe act could be overturned ?  Maybe after season 3 of walking dead. |
Award: 24/365 Most likely to be an appendix.
"Arfcom makes me happy. Arfcom is like a giant, heavily armed, dysfunctional family that smells like cheetos and gun oil." - Undefined
"Arfcom makes me happy. Arfcom is like a giant, heavily armed, dysfunctional family that smells like cheetos and gun oil." - Undefined
|
Originally Posted By -FiveFiveSIx-:
Fixed it for ya Originally Posted By -FiveFiveSIx-:
Originally Posted By NoloContendere:
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 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. |
|
Originally Posted By 41magluva:
If the taser ban goes away, doesn't it make sense that the list of deadly weapons such as nunchucks, switchblades, billy clubs, pilum ballistic knives, gravity knives and such would also be deregulated? What, and have the scourge of sword canes loose in NY again? They just got machetes back on the naughty list, but with an exemption for illegal aliens, jesus christ I can feel my blood pressure rising fucking fucker fucks |
Fun to play with, but not to eat.
|
Originally Posted By Aimless:
What, and have the scourge of sword canes loose in NY again? They just got machetes back on the naughty list, but with an exemption for illegal aliens, jesus christ I can feel my blood pressure rising fucking fucker fucks I hope my top hat shillelagh isn't in danger... 
|
Award: 24/365 Most likely to be an appendix.
"Arfcom makes me happy. Arfcom is like a giant, heavily armed, dysfunctional family that smells like cheetos and gun oil." - Undefined
"Arfcom makes me happy. Arfcom is like a giant, heavily armed, dysfunctional family that smells like cheetos and gun oil." - Undefined
|
Originally Posted By Aimless:
What, and have the scourge of sword canes loose in NY again? They just got machetes back on the naughty list, but with an exemption for illegal aliens, jesus christ I can feel my blood pressure rising fucking fucker fucks  Failed To Load Title |
Evil_ATF: He may speak true but no one calls my woman a bitch except me, motherfucker. Get off of your shark and prepare to defend yourself.
|
Originally Posted By Abom:
OK, I don't get it. If SCOTUS already rules stun guns are legal, why go after NY? Isn't the law thus null and void? Wouldn't the best thing to do is get busted and then sue the state? They ruled the MA law was unconstitutional, the NY law was never challenged. It would be the same if Maryland's AWB is overturned by SCOTUS the safe act wouldn't go away immediately, it would have to be challenged in court but this citing the new SCOTUS opinion. |
.
|
Originally Posted By snakes19:
They ruled the MA law was unconstitutional, the NY law was never challenged. It would be the same if Maryland's AWB is overturned by SCOTUS the safe act wouldn't go away immediately, it would have to be challenged in court but this citing the new SCOTUS opinion. So we should be focusing on helping Maryland fight against the AWB? |
|
Originally Posted By snakes19:
They ruled the MA law was unconstitutional, the NY law was never challenged. It would be the same if Maryland's AWB is overturned by SCOTUS the safe act wouldn't go away immediately, it would have to be challenged in court but this citing the new SCOTUS opinion. BUT if NYS elected to prosecute after the clear SCOTUS ruling, would that not leave the prosecutor open to legal action, such as malicious prosecution and recovery of legal costs since they should have known better? |
| here it is |
"My wife and I are really into S&M. She sleeps and I masturbate" Greenlocust.
|
Originally Posted By Sdsquad1:
So we should be focusing on helping Maryland fight against the AWB? At this point I do not think it make much difference. The circuit court ruled against the ban but the state asked for a rehearing en banc which was granted, we are currently awaiting the result of that. The full circuit court will likely rule the AWB is legal at which point the next step is to go to the supreme court. Problem there is that the SC hasn't been touching similar 2nd amendment cases for the past few years and Trump's new justice will at best be as good as Scalia so it will be back to where we were a year ago. I don't see anything happening at the SC until one of the liberal justices is replaced and even though there are two old ones on the bench they are probably going to stay there till they die or a dem wins in 2020. |
.
| It'll be great when our great-great-great-great-great-grandkids will be able to finally see the efforts of the work done today. |
Award: 24/365 Most likely to be an appendix.
"Arfcom makes me happy. Arfcom is like a giant, heavily armed, dysfunctional family that smells like cheetos and gun oil." - Undefined
"Arfcom makes me happy. Arfcom is like a giant, heavily armed, dysfunctional family that smells like cheetos and gun oil." - Undefined
| It will be interesting to see what kind of defense they come up with. Are they going to try the "it wasn't around in 1787" argument that SCOTUS already shot down? Claim that they aren't in common use? I can't realistically see a "dangerous and unusual" claim when you can carry a handgun and these are less lethal alternatives. |
|
Originally Posted By JPNY23:
thats a part of the point. Yea, I'm just sickened at the speed at which rights are taken away vs. how slowly they are restored, if at all. 
|
Award: 24/365 Most likely to be an appendix.
"Arfcom makes me happy. Arfcom is like a giant, heavily armed, dysfunctional family that smells like cheetos and gun oil." - Undefined
"Arfcom makes me happy. Arfcom is like a giant, heavily armed, dysfunctional family that smells like cheetos and gun oil." - Undefined
|
Originally Posted By Doppleganger871:
Yea, I'm just sickened at the speed at which rights are taken away vs. how slowly they are restored, if at all. Originally Posted By Doppleganger871:
Originally Posted By JPNY23:
thats a part of the point. Yea, I'm just sickened at the speed at which rights are taken away vs. how slowly they are restored, if at all. Roger that brother. |
|
Originally Posted By cviss:
NY is a complete lost cause.. The only ways things will change in this state would be dragging them out of the capital and placing them on the liberty tree. That will not happen in this day in age. 2 years. After that, all bets are off. |
|
Originally Posted By NoloContendere:
All defendants served. Answer due 12/29. Sweet. You go wih yer bad ass spandex outfit. |
Award: 24/365 Most likely to be an appendix.
"Arfcom makes me happy. Arfcom is like a giant, heavily armed, dysfunctional family that smells like cheetos and gun oil." - Undefined
"Arfcom makes me happy. Arfcom is like a giant, heavily armed, dysfunctional family that smells like cheetos and gun oil." - Undefined
|
Originally Posted By Shott8283:
just saw this pop up all over social media.. nice work! good luck! Someone pointed that out to me, I was all like, "Yea, known about this for days." 
|
Award: 24/365 Most likely to be an appendix.
"Arfcom makes me happy. Arfcom is like a giant, heavily armed, dysfunctional family that smells like cheetos and gun oil." - Undefined
"Arfcom makes me happy. Arfcom is like a giant, heavily armed, dysfunctional family that smells like cheetos and gun oil." - Undefined
If you have a Japanese sword from WWII - PM ME!
Joined:
Jul 2005
Posts:
6898
EE: 0% (0)
NY, USA
|
How SCOTUS can say tasers are protected with an 8-0 ruling, but semi-auto rifles and handguns aren't, is beyond me.
And how NY courts can ignore the taser ruling just boggles my mind. If tasers are covered, then guns of all kinds are as well. You simply can't ban them. But that would take an honest court. Not Skretny and the 2nd circuit asshats. |
If you have a Japanese sword from WWII - PM ME!