Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
11/20/2019 5:07:11 PM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 7
Posted: 6/22/2013 5:29:11 PM EST
http://www.nysrpa.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=860&Itemid=199

It says in the link that the state had until June 22 to respond to the amended complaint.
Link Posted: 6/22/2013 6:24:50 PM EST
[Last Edit: 6/22/2013 6:25:00 PM EST by Dosmac]
I've got $50 on delayed / requested more time.
Link Posted: 6/23/2013 2:06:21 AM EST

Originally Posted By Dosmac:
I've got $50 on delayed / requested more time.

I'll take $100 for postponed until April 16, 2014 Alex!
Link Posted: 6/23/2013 7:35:37 AM EST
No updates on the NYSRPA news page or Facebook.
Then again, it was due yesterday. If the State actually responded, they did it at the last possible minute. So it'll probably take until Monday for anything to get done.
Link Posted: 6/24/2013 8:39:30 AM EST
The state responded... it closed it's eyes, stuck it's fingers in it's ears and said "NahNahNahNah..."
Link Posted: 6/24/2013 9:06:45 AM EST
Originally Posted By cas:
The state responded... it closed it's eyes, stuck it's fingers in it's ears and said "NahNahNahNah..."


Link Posted: 6/24/2013 9:13:26 AM EST
Originally Posted By byuind:
Originally Posted By cas:
The state responded... it closed it's eyes, stuck it's fingers in it's ears and said "NahNahNahNah..."


https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTW79TDq_SPs96-kLqK5YPJ35clymrHb68AT0rkBqii6PWID6eiTg


That would be funny if my rights ( and those of a million others ) weren't being ass raped by the fascist in charge and his mob .
Link Posted: 6/24/2013 9:38:24 AM EST
Originally Posted By Gastard:
Originally Posted By byuind:
Originally Posted By cas:
The state responded... it closed it's eyes, stuck it's fingers in it's ears and said "NahNahNahNah..."


https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTW79TDq_SPs96-kLqK5YPJ35clymrHb68AT0rkBqii6PWID6eiTg


That would be funny if my rights ( and those of a million others ) weren't being ass raped by the fascist in charge and his mob .


Im personally holding out hope they get attacked by the angry mob of otters.... science damn them!

Link Posted: 6/24/2013 9:42:14 AM EST
I cant find anything posted yet, wtf. Tons of useless info over an over again, but something that matters is buried. IDK If anyone saw the drive-by in Watertown NY. that house on the corner is my grandmothers, she passed years ago. I'm glad she is not here to see the mess that's going on now. But hell she would of been out there with her 30-30 looking for targets god bless her.
Link Posted: 6/24/2013 2:15:28 PM EST
[Last Edit: 6/24/2013 2:17:45 PM EST by Aardvark]
An update was released a little while ago. It is breathtaking in its argument. Basically they are arguing that even if your Second Amendment rights are being infringed, the states interest in crime prevention and public safety outweighs your rights. Wow!

If this logic survives, and I have to admit I am impressed both by their argument and the audacity of it, then the entire bill of rights is in doubt since one can certainly argue that the state has a vested interest in suppressing ALL rights in the interest of public safety and crime prevention.

---

http://blog.timesunion.com/capitol/archives/190040/kathleen-rice-james-sheppard-line-up-for-safe-act/

Top law enforcement officials have filed court
affirmations in support of New York’s new gun
control law, the SAFE Act, as state lawyers moved
to dismiss a federal challenge to the law brought
by the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association.

Nassau County District Attorney Kathleen Rice,
Rochester Police Chief James Sheppard and a top
State Police lawyer all filed sworn statements as
part of over 100 pages filed by Attorney General
Eric Schneiderman in reply to the suit, which was
brought in March in a federal court in Buffalo.

"New York’s bans on assault weapons and large-
capacity magazines do not even implicate
Plaintiffs’ Second Amendment rights, because such
weapons are not within the scope of Second
Amendment protection,” the state argues in court
papers. "In any event, even if they did
substantially burden Plaintiffs’ rights, these
provisions so clearly satisfy New York’s
interests in public safety and crime prevention
that they easily survive constitutional scrutiny.”


The lawsuit filed by the New York State Rifle and
Pistol Association and several individual
plaintiffs — including Assemblyman Bill Nojay,
R-Monroe County — contends in part that the SAFE
Act infringes on New Yorkers’ Second Amendment
rights because it impedes their ability to defend
themselves in their own homes.

Rice and Kevin Bruen, the State Police lawyer,
argue assault rifles are ill-suited for home
defense because their rounds can easily pierce
walls and injure family members. Shotguns, Bruen
rights, are preferable. In a statistical analysis
of crime data conducted by Lucy Allen, an
economist, the state estimated the odds of a
multiple-intruder home invasion at less than one
in 20 million, per year. Further, Allen reported
that just one of the 298 firearm defense cases
detailed in an National Rifle Association
database over the past three years involved the
firing of more than seven rounds.

The SAFE Act broadened the definition of banned
assault weapons, increased penalties for illegal
gun possession, reduced public access to gun
permit information, and required mental health
professionals to report concerns about a
gun-owning patient who posed a risk of harming
himself or others. It also bans any magazine with
the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds, and
forbids people from loading magazines with more than seven cartridges.

The bill was unveiled on Jan. 14, and passed
quickly through a "message of necessity” that
waived the legally required three-day waiting
period. The Senate, led by a Republican-dominated
coalition, passed the measure by a 43-18 vote
less than two hours after the bill’s text became
public. The Democrat-dominated Assembly passed
the bill the next day, and Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed it.

Tom King, president of NYSRPA, reserved comment on the state’s filing.

Here are Rice and Bruen’s affirmations:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/149779609/130621-Rice-SAFE-Reply


Link Posted: 6/24/2013 2:19:56 PM EST
Originally Posted By Aardvark:
An update was released a little while ago. It is breathtaking in its argument. Basically they are arguing that even if your Second Amendment rights are being infringed, the states interest in crime prevention and public safety outweighs your rights. Wow!

If this logic survives, and I have to admit I am impressed both by their argument and the audacity of it, then the entire bill of rights is in doubt since one can certainly argue that the state has a vested interest in suppressing ALL rights in the interest of public safety and crime prevention.

---

http://blog.timesunion.com/capitol/archives/190040/kathleen-rice-james-sheppard-line-up-for-safe-act/

Top law enforcement officials have filed court
affirmations in support of New York’s new gun
control law, the SAFE Act, as state lawyers moved
to dismiss a federal challenge to the law brought
by the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association.

Nassau County District Attorney Kathleen Rice,
Rochester Police Chief James Sheppard and a top
State Police lawyer all filed sworn statements as
part of over 100 pages filed by Attorney General
Eric Schneiderman in reply to the suit, which was
brought in March in a federal court in Buffalo.

"New York’s bans on assault weapons and large-
capacity magazines do not even implicate
Plaintiffs’ Second Amendment rights, because such
weapons are not within the scope of Second
Amendment protection,” the state argues in court
papers. "In any event, even if they did
substantially burden Plaintiffs’ rights, these
provisions so clearly satisfy New York’s
interests in public safety and crime prevention
that they easily survive constitutional scrutiny.”


The lawsuit filed by the New York State Rifle and
Pistol Association and several individual
plaintiffs — including Assemblyman Bill Nojay,
R-Monroe County — contends in part that the SAFE
Act infringes on New Yorkers’ Second Amendment
rights because it impedes their ability to defend
themselves in their own homes.

Rice and Kevin Bruen, the State Police lawyer,
argue assault rifles are ill-suited for home
defense because their rounds can easily pierce
walls and injure family members. Shotguns, Bruen
rights, are preferable. In a statistical analysis
of crime data conducted by Lucy Allen, an
economist, the state estimated the odds of a
multiple-intruder home invasion at less than one
in 20 million, per year. Further, Allen reported
that just one of the 298 firearm defense cases
detailed in an National Rifle Association
database over the past three years involved the
firing of more than seven rounds.

The SAFE Act broadened the definition of banned
assault weapons, increased penalties for illegal
gun possession, reduced public access to gun
permit information, and required mental health
professionals to report concerns about a
gun-owning patient who posed a risk of harming
himself or others. It also bans any magazine with
the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds, and
forbids people from loading magazines with more than seven cartridges.

The bill was unveiled on Jan. 14, and passed
quickly through a "message of necessity” that
waived the legally required three-day waiting
period. The Senate, led by a Republican-dominated
coalition, passed the measure by a 43-18 vote
less than two hours after the bill’s text became
public. The Democrat-dominated Assembly passed
the bill the next day, and Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed it.

Tom King, president of NYSRPA, reserved comment on the state’s filing.

Here are Rice and Bruen’s affirmations:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/149779609/130621-Rice-SAFE-Reply




Neat.

We won already.

Time to move back to NY everyone.
Link Posted: 6/24/2013 2:26:35 PM EST

Originally Posted By RabidMonkeyPox:


Neat.

We won already.

Time to move back to NY everyone.

If I was not crying, that would be funny
Link Posted: 6/24/2013 2:30:02 PM EST
They're not insane in their own minds.

Link Posted: 6/24/2013 2:33:29 PM EST
tyranny. It looks like the Bill of Rights is being rendered meaningless.
Link Posted: 6/24/2013 2:35:02 PM EST
100 pages to say "rights-shmights".
Link Posted: 6/24/2013 2:59:59 PM EST
Ya know what comes to mind!? Cuomo, n his "GANG" as described by his own definition, need a good old fashion, schoolyard beat down. Bring them back to reality.
Link Posted: 6/24/2013 3:14:09 PM EST
My rage right now is making my brain a bowl of fuck. Fucking fascist.
Link Posted: 6/24/2013 3:33:38 PM EST
Some more fuel for the fire. They are definitely challenging AR-15's, etc. on the "dangerous and unusual" interpretation:
The Second Amendment "does not protect dangerous and unusual
weapons," the chiefs said, "It protects only weapons that are in
common use for lawful purposes."

Sadly there is a wide open field of interpretation on that and I can see it going either way. Perhaps others see a silver lining but I see nothing in this to excite me. I certainly expect to see a denial of an injunction.

---

http://www.buffalonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20130624/CITYANDREGION/130629518/1002

New York's sheriffs have been outspoken in their opposition to the
state's new gun-control law.

Now the nation's big-city police chiefs are wading into the legal fight.

And they support the SAFE Act.

"Assault weapons are enablers of violent crime and mass murder," the
Major City Chiefs Association said in a friend-of-the-court brief
filed in U.S. District Court in Buffalo.

The association, which counts Buffalo Police Commissioner Daniel
Derenda and 62 other urban police chiefs as members, views the new
law as an important step in curbing the illegal use of assault weapons.

So does Rochester's police chief, who filed his own brief in support
of the law.

Chief James M. Sheppard pointed to last year's Christmas Eve ambush
that killed two volunteer firefighters, one of them a police officer,
and wounded two others in the Rochester suburb of Webster.

Sheppard said the gunman, who took his own life before he could be
captured, used the same type of Bushmaster assault rifle that was
used to kill 26 people earlier in December at Shady Hook Elementary
School in Newtown, Conn.

"The type of semiautomatic rifle used in Webster ... is now banned as
an assault weapon under the SAFE Act," he said in his brief.

The briefs filed by Sheppard and the police chiefs, who were joined
by two other groups, are the latest developments in a lawsuit
challenging the five-month-old law.

Derenda, a member of the chiefs association, could not be reached to
comment, but a source close to the commissioner said he intends to
enforce the law.

The suit, filed in Buffalo federal court by the New York State Rifle
and Pistol Association, claims the law violates an individual's right
to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment.

The new briefs also suggest that when it comes to the SAFE Act,
there's a wide rural versus urban chasm in New York's law enforcement
community.

"Certainly guns are more of a concern in urban areas," Erie County
Sheriff Timothy B. Howard said Monday. "Unfortunately, they made a
one-size-fits-all law, and that never works."

Howard, who has been vocal in his opposition to the law and has vowed
not to enforce it, said he is not surprised by the chiefs' stance on the law.

Like Sheppard, he filed a brief, although his supports overturning
the SAFE Act.

Howard, who was joined in his opposition by the New York Sheriffs
Association, thinks the law is an infringement on the Second
Amendment and a blow to law-abiding citizens, especially gun owners.

"I really wish we could go back to square one," he said Monday,

The SAFE Act, pushed through the State Legislature following the
Sandy Hook shootings, includes an expansion of New York's assault weapons ban.

It also requires mental health professionals to report the names of
patients they think are a threat to themselves or others and gives
the state authority to confiscate weapons if they have them.

Mental health experts claim the provision will create a chilling
effect on people who need professional help but might otherwise avoid
it because their weapons might be taken away.

The police chiefs, in their brief, said the link between mass murder
and assault weapons is undeniable.

"Mass slaughters terrorize society at large, undermine the public's
sense of safety and security, and burden the community with latent
fear and uncertainty," the group said in its brief.

It also challenged the notion that the new law violates the Constitution.

The Second Amendment "does not protect dangerous and unusual
weapons," the chiefs said, "It protects only weapons that are in
common use for lawful purposes."


Sheppard agreed and cited crime statistics indicating that Rochester
had the third-highest rate of violent crime in the state outside of
New York City.

"With over 32 years as a law enforcement officer in the City of
Rochester," he said, "I have witnessed firsthand the devastating
effects of gun violence on victims, families and neighborhoods."

Sheppard and the police chiefs are not the only groups and
individuals asking Chief U.S. District Judge William M. Skretny, who
is hearing the case, to reject the rifle association's request for an
injunction blocking enforcement of the law.

Briefs also were filed by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence,
one of the country's most influential gun-control advocates, as well
as several nationally known researchers involved in the study of gun violence.
Link Posted: 6/24/2013 4:02:50 PM EST
That's a weak sauce 1L argument right there.

I think we know who got that C in Con law.
Link Posted: 6/24/2013 4:43:15 PM EST
The state's saying these mislabeled "assault weapons" aren't covered under the second amendment? Did the offer up a magical "why", or on what they're basing that, or just a "cuz we say so"?
Link Posted: 6/24/2013 5:12:06 PM EST
I cant comprehend all the fuck.
Link Posted: 6/24/2013 5:56:58 PM EST




http://www.buffalonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20130624/CITYANDREGION/130629518/1002



Now the nation's big-city police chiefs are wading into the legal fight.

And they support the SAFE Act.

"Assault weapons are enablers of violent crime and mass murder," the
Major City Chiefs Association said in a friend-of-the-court brief
filed in U.S. District Court in Buffalo.

The association, which counts Buffalo Police Commissioner Daniel
Derenda and 62 other urban police chiefs as members, views the new
law as an important step in curbing the illegal use of assault weapons.

So does Rochester's police chief, who filed his own brief in support
of the law.


The police chiefs, in their brief, said the link between mass murder
and assault weapons is undeniable.

"Mass slaughters terrorize society at large, undermine the public's
sense of safety and security, and burden the community with latent
fear and uncertainty," the group said in its brief.

Sheppard agreed and cited crime statistics indicating that Rochester
had the third-highest rate of violent crime in the state outside of
New York City.

"With over 32 years as a law enforcement officer in the City of
Rochester," he said, "I have witnessed firsthand the devastating
effects of gun violence on victims, families and neighborhoods."

Sheppard and the police chiefs are not the only groups and
individuals asking Chief U.S. District Judge William M. Skretny, who
is hearing the case, to reject the rifle association's request for an
injunction blocking enforcement of the law.

.


Maybe these "big city" or "urban" police chiefs should step back and look at how many kids they loose in their communities through abortion!

Statistics:

Abortions in the United States,

Total number of abortions in the U.S. 1973-2011: 54.5 million+

234 abortions per 1,000 live births (according to the Centers for Disease Control)
Abortions per year: 1.2 million
Abortions per day: 3,288
Abortions per hour: 137
9 abortions every 4 minutes


Now we are talking about MASS MURDER!


Link Posted: 6/24/2013 6:20:52 PM EST
Can any of our law Savoy folks, give us there take on this? Good? Bad? Seems odd they can come right out n say, screw your rights.
Link Posted: 6/24/2013 6:34:32 PM EST
....what about Miller?
Miller says they're covered....
Link Posted: 6/24/2013 6:37:37 PM EST
Originally Posted By cas:
The state's saying these mislabeled "assault weapons" aren't covered under the second amendment? Did the offer up a magical "why", or on what they're basing that, or just a "cuz we say so"?


Because the most popular rifle in America somehow doesn't qualify as "in common use"

Link Posted: 6/24/2013 6:39:40 PM EST
[Last Edit: 6/24/2013 6:41:41 PM EST by Dosmac]
Looks like I lose $50 and my rights.


Originally Posted By GTwannabe:
Originally Posted By cas:
The state's saying these mislabeled "assault weapons" aren't covered under the second amendment? Did the offer up a magical "why", or on what they're basing that, or just a "cuz we say so"?


Because the most popular rifle in America somehow doesn't qualify as "in common use"



Makes you wonder what is "Common use" if not the most popular rifle in the country.
Link Posted: 6/24/2013 7:03:23 PM EST
It appears the socialist you have in charge is a believer in Obama's speech about the constitution getting in the way.

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile
Link Posted: 6/24/2013 7:03:32 PM EST
Yeah, thumbuddy fergetted to read Heller and McDonald and failed to comprehend interest balancing. Doh.

Still, if the judge was going to grant an injunction (as should have been done) it would have happened long ago, so this is going to trial.



Originally Posted By Dosmac:
Looks like I lose $50 and my rights.


Originally Posted By GTwannabe:
Originally Posted By cas:
The state's saying these mislabeled "assault weapons" aren't covered under the second amendment? Did the offer up a magical "why", or on what they're basing that, or just a "cuz we say so"?


Because the most popular rifle in America somehow doesn't qualify as "in common use"



Makes you wonder what is "Common use" if not the most popular rifle in the country.


Link Posted: 6/24/2013 7:09:02 PM EST
and will take 2-3 years to reach SCoTUS if at all.
Link Posted: 6/24/2013 7:19:20 PM EST
[Last Edit: 6/24/2013 7:26:16 PM EST by Chris1NY]
Originally Posted By cas:
The state's saying these mislabeled "assault weapons" aren't covered under the second amendment? Did the offer up a magical "why", or on what they're basing that, or just a "cuz we say so"?


+1

Steve McLaughlin for New York Governor!
Link Posted: 6/24/2013 8:51:49 PM EST
I'm glad they have Kathleen Rice working on this. Everything she does backfires in spectacular fashion.
Link Posted: 6/24/2013 9:24:55 PM EST
[Last Edit: 6/25/2013 4:33:10 AM EST by BenC]
Originally Posted By P400:
I'm glad they have Kathleen Rice working on this. Everything she does backfires in spectacular fashion.


She's a true visionary. Hopefully she''ll explain how pinning works while she's at it.

Link Posted: 6/25/2013 1:39:34 AM EST
Wow, looks like state is throwing a hail mary.
Link Posted: 6/25/2013 2:24:18 AM EST
Hmmm. So a mini 14 without a muzzle brake can't shoot through a wall but a mini 14 with one can? Good argument kathy!

Fucking cunt.
Link Posted: 6/25/2013 2:32:21 AM EST
No matter what happens this will NOT head in a direction that prince andy will like .
Link Posted: 6/25/2013 2:38:52 AM EST

Originally Posted By Gastard:
No matter what happens this will NOT head in a direction that prince andy will like .

Perhaps but I have this gut feeling we are going to wind up with a Kalchasky type scenario. The Second Circuit will uphold the entire act and the Supreme Court will look the other way leaving us as we are but other states free. Perhaps the court wants this county to be a collection of red and blue zones rather than forcing us all to be red or blue. At least then people have the option to vote with their feet. Not like the 1994 Federal ban that covered the entire nation.
Link Posted: 6/25/2013 2:43:57 AM EST
[Last Edit: 6/25/2013 2:45:04 AM EST by Gastard]
No . . . I won't be voting w/ my feet . What kind of fucktard chickens do you think we are ?
Link Posted: 6/25/2013 2:52:54 AM EST
[Last Edit: 6/25/2013 2:54:26 AM EST by widerstehe]
Originally Posted By Gastard:
No . . . I won't be voting w/ my feet . What kind of fucktard chickens do you think we are ?


It's not about being chicken. It's about being realistic. NY is fucking lost. It's time to pull back and re-group.



I am typing this on my laptop from a free wifi spot in the parking lot of a pizza place in S.C. right now as I am driving around looking at land.

Nothing is set in stone, but I am definitely exploring my options.

Link Posted: 6/25/2013 3:13:32 AM EST

Originally Posted By widerstehe:
Originally Posted By Gastard:
No . . . I won't be voting w/ my feet . What kind of fucktard chickens do you think we are ?


It's not about being chicken. It's about being realistic. NY is fucking lost. It's time to pull back and re-group.


+1

Forget about firearms for a moment and look at everything else wrong with New York. The sky high taxes and fees along with reduced services because all that money is going to pay retirement benefits granted thirty years ago. The bans or severe restrictions on just about anything one could consider fun (the "bachelor party" things). $37 a year to have my car inspected and take a chance they will "find" some else wrong with the car (last year they broke off a retaining clip "inspecting" my air filter). $120 to register my car every two years. Oddball business taxes, etc. etc.

Today is moving day for my next door neighbors of twenty-five years. They finally gave up and are moving to Florida. Oppressive taxes finally did them in.

New York cannot be fixed within the current system. The only solution I see is either a collapse of the government itself or an external organization such as the Federal government stepping in and taking charge due to all the criminal activity going on. New York has been a mess since the 1700's. Recall they could not even get their act together to approve their delegates signing of the Declaration of Independence and we were number 11 of 13 to ratify the Constitution. Not a stellar record.
Link Posted: 6/25/2013 3:19:58 AM EST
Originally Posted By Aardvark:

Originally Posted By widerstehe:
Originally Posted By Gastard:
No . . . I won't be voting w/ my feet . What kind of fucktard chickens do you think we are ?


It's not about being chicken. It's about being realistic. NY is fucking lost. It's time to pull back and re-group.


+1

Forget about firearms for a moment and look at everything else wrong with New York. The sky high taxes and fees along with reduced services because all that money is going to pay retirement benefits granted thirty years ago. The bans or severe restrictions on just about anything one could consider fun (the "bachelor party" things). $37 a year to have my car inspected and take a chance they will "find" some else wrong with the car (last year they broke off a retaining clip "inspecting" my air filter). $120 to register my car every two years. Oddball business taxes, etc. etc.

Today is moving day for my next door neighbors of twenty-five years. They finally gave up and are moving to Florida. Oppressive taxes finally did them in.

New York cannot be fixed within the current system. The only solution I see is either a collapse of the government itself or an external organization such as the Federal government stepping in and taking charge due to all the criminal activity going on. New York has been a mess since the 1700's. Recall they could not even get their act together to approve their delegates signing of the Declaration of Independence and we were number 11 of 13 to ratify the Constitution. Not a stellar record.

Well , you just made a great case for staying put and doing as I godddamn please .
Link Posted: 6/25/2013 4:40:08 AM EST
"Assault weapons are enablers of violent crime and mass murder," the
Major City Chiefs Association said in a friend-of-the-court brief
filed in U.S. District Court in Buffalo.


Killed how many in New York State last year??? Two? Five? In a state of 20 Million.


Link Posted: 6/25/2013 4:58:58 AM EST
[Last Edit: 6/25/2013 5:00:06 AM EST by Lenny]
There are two huge problems with the State's argument:

1. It is based on presumption that hunting and self-defence are the only common and lawful uses of firearms. They completely ignore shooting sports, where AR-15 is the most commonly used rifle. In fact it is the only competitive rifle you can use in a program established by an act of Congress that became a part of Federal Law.

2. The State is already bound by their own definition of "assault rifle", which became law in 2000.
Link Posted: 6/25/2013 5:40:19 AM EST
Sooo...they are saying that just because a gun has a pistol grip, it is suddenly unsuitable for home defense since it can more easily shoot through walls?

And ARs aren't in common use? You mean the most common rifle in the entire country? Gotcha.

And these so called "assault weapons" have been used in so many crimes? You mean NONE? Hell, even non-AW long guns were only used in what? 5 murders in all of NY last year?

If we don't win this...the kangaroo courts have no hope.
Link Posted: 6/25/2013 6:25:50 AM EST
Should we see the lazy stupidity of their argument as a good thing or a bad thing?

It seems just too simplistic. Like they know they already know what the outcome will be, and they don't even have to try.
Link Posted: 6/25/2013 6:27:29 AM EST
The only snippits I've seen are from Sheppard (inner city retard) and Five Head (proven loser in similar case.) That's out of 100 pages.

One must expect the State's response to be a bit more intelligent- heck, one could build a superficially reasonable arguement by looking at Heller, McDonald, and other recent cases and compiling the caveats and dissents.

There is NO WAY the State's response can be as weak (ludicrous is really a better description) as the snippits from the two loons that have been published.
Link Posted: 6/25/2013 6:34:43 AM EST
[Last Edit: 6/25/2013 6:34:59 AM EST by DaveM4P99]
Originally Posted By Abom:
The only snippits I've seen are from Sheppard (inner city retard) and Five Head (proven loser in similar case.) That's out of 100 pages.

One must expect the State's response to be a bit more intelligent- heck, one could build a superficially reasonable arguement by looking at Heller, McDonald, and other recent cases and compiling the caveats and dissents.

There is NO WAY the State's response can be as weak (ludicrous is really a better description) as the snippits from the two loons that have been published.


I doubt their actual argument will be any more insightful.

They have only ever used emotional arguments, and incorrect logic, to make their case. It has worked so many times for them in the past, I assume they figured it was the best way to go again.
Link Posted: 6/25/2013 6:51:43 AM EST
[Last Edit: 6/25/2013 6:53:51 AM EST by Lenny]
Their argument is in conflict with the Federal Law. They can't impose a de facto ban on NY residents from participating in Civilian Marksmanship program established by the act of Congress.
Link Posted: 6/25/2013 7:02:01 AM EST
Originally Posted By Abom:

There is NO WAY the State's response can be as weak (ludicrous is really a better description) as the snippits from the two loons that have been published.


Sure it can, if they have little in the way of factual information with which to defend their position.

Link Posted: 6/25/2013 7:16:45 AM EST
Originally Posted By P400:
Originally Posted By Abom:

There is NO WAY the State's response can be as weak (ludicrous is really a better description) as the snippits from the two loons that have been published.


Sure it can, if they have little in the way of factual information with which to defend their position.



And just think. It took them 6 months to come up with this argument.

Fucking assholes.

It's comical just how sad their position of grasping at straws really is.

But it's not funny that their shitty argument just may be good enough to be upheld in the rigged court system we have nowadays.

We'll see, I guess. In the meantime I'm driving all over S.C. looking for a potential new home. Just drove to Loris, where PTR is moving to but didn't find the exact spot.
Link Posted: 6/25/2013 7:20:59 AM EST
They don't care. Cuomo got his national media coverage when it passed.
Link Posted: 6/25/2013 7:21:55 AM EST
So what is the next step and when? Should I continue digging?
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 7
Top Top