Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
Durkin Tactical Franklin Armory
User Panel

Page / 11
Link Posted: 12/1/2016 12:42:39 PM EDT
[#1]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Ciraxis:



cuomo, fuck him right in the ass
View Quote


And thanks.
Link Posted: 12/2/2016 1:54:44 PM EDT
[#2]
Thank you.  Keep us posted please!!!
Link Posted: 12/2/2016 2:30:30 PM EDT
[#3]
I hope we all get Winning AIDS from this. 

Link Posted: 12/2/2016 6:46:17 PM EDT
[#4]
Did anything happen yet?
Link Posted: 12/2/2016 9:03:49 PM EDT
[#5]
Link Posted: 12/2/2016 11:47:39 PM EDT
[#6]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By NoloContendere:


soooooooooooooooooon..........
View Quote


Link Posted: 12/3/2016 1:40:35 AM EDT
[#7]
All these "upgrades" but no "like" button....
Link Posted: 12/3/2016 8:13:53 AM EDT
[#8]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By GTwannabe:


http://i.imgur.com/HWk4JOk.png?1
View Quote


I use to get like that when I was a teenager.
Link Posted: 12/3/2016 8:17:02 PM EDT
[#9]
Link Posted: 12/3/2016 8:26:43 PM EDT
[#10]
You're killing us, we have to wait until monday to find out what it's about?
Link Posted: 12/3/2016 8:30:33 PM EDT
[#11]
Link Posted: 12/3/2016 8:33:14 PM EDT
[#12]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
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.
View Quote



Merry Christmas Cuomo..... And a happy fuck you!
Link Posted: 12/3/2016 8:39:08 PM EDT
[#13]
Link Posted: 12/3/2016 8:50:53 PM EDT
[#14]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
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 Taser AR-15.  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.
View Quote



Fixed it for ya
Link Posted: 12/3/2016 9:51:54 PM EDT
[#15]
Awesome!

thanks!
Link Posted: 12/3/2016 11:35:10 PM EDT
[#16]
If we win this is there a possibility that the safe act could be overturned ?
Link Posted: 12/4/2016 3:27:33 AM EDT
[#17]
TAG!
Link Posted: 12/5/2016 1:16:09 PM EDT
[#18]
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?
Link Posted: 12/5/2016 1:19:40 PM EDT
[#19]
Link Posted: 12/5/2016 1:29:33 PM EDT
[#20]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Sdsquad1:
If we win this is there a possibility that the safe act could be overturned ?
View Quote

Maybe after season 3 of walking dead.
Link Posted: 12/5/2016 2:13:49 PM EDT
[#21]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By -FiveFiveSIx-:
Fixed it for ya
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
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 Taser AR-15.  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.
Fixed it for ya
Unfortunately, Unless/until SCOTUS rules otherwise, the ban is settled law in the 2nd Circuit, not to mention the 1st as well.  Still waiting on an en banc ruling in the 4th Circuit on Kolbe v. Hogan.  However, the best that would do at this time is to kick the case back down to the lower court and require it to be decided under Strict Scrutiny.  They are not deciding the merits of the law, just the level of scrutiny in the 4th Circuit and possibly other Circuit's that HAVE NOT YET RULED on such cases (http://www.mdchhs.com/kolbe-v-hogan-4th-circuit-proscribes-strict-scrutiny-for-state-ban-on-assault-rifles/).  Too late for us in the 2nd.
Link Posted: 12/5/2016 2:19:05 PM EDT
[#22]
Link Posted: 12/5/2016 2:53:49 PM EDT
[#23]
Link Posted: 12/5/2016 7:00:43 PM EDT
[#24]
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?
Link Posted: 12/5/2016 8:16:48 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Aimless] [#25]
Link Posted: 12/5/2016 9:02:30 PM EDT
[#26]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By NoloContendere:


I am coming to do what I do. Sue the government.
View Quote

 Get 'em 
Link Posted: 12/5/2016 9:28:49 PM EDT
[#27]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
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
View Quote

I hope my top hat shillelagh isn't in danger...
Link Posted: 12/6/2016 9:11:09 AM EDT
[#28]
Good luck .
Link Posted: 12/6/2016 8:23:59 PM EDT
[#29]
Link Posted: 12/7/2016 2:31:31 AM EDT
[#30]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
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
View Quote



Link Posted: 12/7/2016 9:07:41 AM EDT
[#31]
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?
Link Posted: 12/7/2016 9:49:21 AM EDT
[#32]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
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?
View Quote


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.
Link Posted: 12/7/2016 10:43:38 AM EDT
[#33]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
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.
View Quote



So we should be focusing on helping Maryland fight against the AWB?
Link Posted: 12/7/2016 11:39:24 AM EDT
[#34]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By snakes19:
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.
View Quote



Is their ban similar to the unsafe act?
Link Posted: 12/7/2016 12:36:08 PM EDT
[#35]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
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.
View Quote



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?
Link Posted: 12/7/2016 1:58:14 PM EDT
[#36]
Link Posted: 12/7/2016 3:47:01 PM EDT
[#37]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Sdsquad1:



So we should be focusing on helping Maryland fight against the AWB?
View Quote


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.
Link Posted: 12/8/2016 11:52:03 AM EDT
[#38]
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.
Link Posted: 12/9/2016 11:45:38 AM EDT
[#39]
thats a part of the point.
Link Posted: 12/9/2016 12:06:07 PM EDT
[#40]
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.
Link Posted: 12/9/2016 1:07:21 PM EDT
[Last Edit: cviss] [#41]
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.
Link Posted: 12/9/2016 1:07:56 PM EDT
[#42]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By JPNY23:
thats a part of the point.
View Quote

Yea, I'm just sickened at the speed at which rights are taken away vs. how slowly they are restored, if at all. 
Link Posted: 12/9/2016 5:42:25 PM EDT
[#43]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
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. 
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
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.
Link Posted: 12/10/2016 4:52:59 PM EDT
[#44]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
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.
View Quote


2 years. After that, all bets are off.
Link Posted: 12/10/2016 5:24:20 PM EDT
[#45]
Link Posted: 12/10/2016 11:31:41 PM EDT
[#46]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By NoloContendere:
All defendants served. Answer due 12/29.
View Quote

Sweet.  You go wih yer bad ass spandex outfit. 
Link Posted: 12/11/2016 9:58:00 AM EDT
[#47]
Link Posted: 12/12/2016 1:35:33 AM EDT
[#48]
just saw this pop up all over social media.. 


nice work!  good luck! 
Link Posted: 12/12/2016 1:46:27 PM EDT
[#49]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Shott8283:
just saw this pop up all over social media.. 


nice work!  good luck! 
View Quote

Someone pointed that out to me, I was all like, "Yea, known about this for days." 
Link Posted: 12/12/2016 2:05:08 PM EDT
[Last Edit: DaveM4P99] [#50]
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.
Page / 11
Close Join Our Mail List to Stay Up To Date! Win a FREE Membership!

Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!

You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.


By signing up you agree to our User Agreement. *Must have a registered ARFCOM account to win.
Top Top