User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/15/2013 4:08:52 AM EDT
[#1]
Not in NY, but I wish you fellas luck in this fight.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2013 4:11:36 AM EDT
[#2]
Sent
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2013 4:11:51 AM EDT
[#3]
Could this get a tack?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2013 4:12:32 AM EDT
[#4]
I was with you till you posted "ex-facto law" which has nothing to do with the current bill that just passed.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2013 4:13:25 AM EDT
[#5]
It is NOT ex post facto and I hope they aren't considering using that in court.
I support the challenge, obviously.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2013 4:13:45 AM EDT
[#6]
Quoted:
Not in NY, but I wish you fellas luck in this fight. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2013 4:14:15 AM EDT
[#7]
Quoted: I was with you till you posted "ex-facto law" which has nothing to do with the current bill that just passed. This. Not ex post facto at all. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2013 4:15:07 AM EDT
[#8]
Get this tacked in HTF.
Info sent. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2013 4:17:26 AM EDT
[#9]
Quoted:
I was with you till you posted "ex-facto law" which has nothing to do with the current bill that just passed. Are you a lawyer? Can you say for certain how the courts may act? I am reminded of an opinion by Justice O'Connor regarding a case that involved birth control pills and essentially, she was weighing in that because of BC pills, decades of American women had been able to be in the workplace and to take away that would be wrong. How a judge may decide might not be just on the words alone. Can you afford to be nit picking when there is someone out there who is going up what appears to me to be your enemy. If all he is asking for is your name, is there any real disadvantage to joining his fight? ___________________________________________________________ ("Captain, there is an old saying. The enemy of my enemy is my friend."--gang leader, (w,stte), ST:TNG, "Legacy") |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2013 4:18:02 AM EDT
[#10]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2013 4:19:58 AM EDT
[#11]
Is petition for ny guys only?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2013 4:20:02 AM EDT
[#12]
Quoted:
Quoted:
I was with you till you posted "ex-facto law" which has nothing to do with the current bill that just passed. This. Not ex post facto at all. Unless I missed it, this is in no way ex post facto. It makes possession of certain items illegal from the date the bills take effect and into the future. It does not make it a crime for having possessed those items prior to the date the bill took effect. I am happy someone is challenging this, but I sure hope he doesn't actually use the ex post facto arguement as it is false and will not hold up (unless of course I missed something in the bills). |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2013 4:20:56 AM EDT
[#13]
Quoted:
Is petition for ny guys only? I'm thinking to be part of the class action lawsuit you'd have to be a resident. Otherwise, the new bills have no effect on you, so how could you take them to court? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2013 4:22:42 AM EDT
[#14]
Quoted: Not in NY, but I wish you fellas luck in this fight. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2013 4:22:51 AM EDT
[#15]
Quoted: Could this get a tack? !!! |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2013 4:23:07 AM EDT
[#16]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I was with you till you posted "ex-facto law" which has nothing to do with the current bill that just passed. This. Not ex post facto at all. Unless I missed it, this is in no way ex post facto. It makes possession of certain items illegal from the date the bills take effect and into the future. It does not make it a crime for having possessed those items prior to the date the bill took effect. I am happy someone is challenging this, but I sure hope he doesn't actually use the ex post facto arguement as it is false and will not hold up (unless of course I missed something in the bills). Agreed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2013 4:23:50 AM EDT
[#17]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I was with you till you posted "ex-facto law" which has nothing to do with the current bill that just passed. This. Not ex post facto at all. Unless I missed it, this is in no way ex post facto. It makes possession of certain items illegal from the date the bills take effect and into the future. It does not make it a crime for having possessed those items prior to the date the bill took effect. I am happy someone is challenging this, but I sure hope he doesn't actually use the ex post facto arguement as it is false and will not hold up (unless of course I missed something in the bills). From an news story about the bill Magazines with a capacity of more than 10 rounds and manufactured before 1994, which are currently legal, would have to be turned over to authorities or sold out of state within one year. If a magazine has a capacity between eight and 10, it would have to be retrofitted to only hold seven rounds |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2013 4:26:17 AM EDT
[#18]
Doesn't the bill being announced say people have to sell magazines and non compliant items within one year. So wouldn't that be Ex post facto? Or what ever the heck its called. Either way it sucks for you guys up there.
Damit someone beat me to it. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2013 4:26:35 AM EDT
[#19]
Quoted:
Quoted:
I was with you till you posted "ex-facto law" which has nothing to do with the current bill that just passed. Are you a lawyer? Can you say for certain how the courts may act? I am reminded of an opinion by Justice O'Connor regarding a case that involved birth control pills and essentially, she was weighing in that because of BC pills, decades of American women had been able to be in the workplace and to take away that would be wrong. How a judge may decide might not be just on the words alone. Can you afford to be nit picking when there is someone out there who is going up what appears to me to be your enemy. If all he is asking for is your name, is there any real disadvantage to joining his fight? ___________________________________________________________ ("Captain, there is an old saying. The enemy of my enemy is my friend."--gang leader, (w,stte), ST:TNG, "Legacy") Yes I can say for certain this is not "ex-facto law" |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2013 4:27:13 AM EDT
[#20]
Done.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2013 4:32:17 AM EDT
[#21]
Sent!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2013 4:36:53 AM EDT
[#22]
I don't know who this guy is (he may be awesome) However I think all the legal eagles need to get together and cooberate with each other. This guy, NRA, SAF, Gura . Let the big boys with their resources and pockets help out.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2013 4:39:32 AM EDT
[#23]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I was with you till you posted "ex-facto law" which has nothing to do with the current bill that just passed. This. Not ex post facto at all. Unless I missed it, this is in no way ex post facto. It makes possession of certain items illegal from the date the bills take effect and into the future. It does not make it a crime for having possessed those items prior to the date the bill took effect. I am happy someone is challenging this, but I sure hope he doesn't actually use the ex post facto arguement as it is false and will not hold up (unless of course I missed something in the bills). From an news story about the bill Magazines with a capacity of more than 10 rounds and manufactured before 1994, which are currently legal, would have to be turned over to authorities or sold out of state within one year. If a magazine has a capacity between eight and 10, it would have to be retrofitted to only hold seven rounds It's a 2A issue and potentially a 5A takings issue, but it's not an ex post facto issue. It would be an ex post facto issue if the bill said "anyone who had a ten round magazine since 1994 is guilty of a crime." The hallmark is charging and convicting someone for a past act or conduct that was not a crime when done. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2013 4:42:01 AM EDT
[#24]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I was with you till you posted "ex-facto law" which has nothing to do with the current bill that just passed. This. Not ex post facto at all. Unless I missed it, this is in no way ex post facto. It makes possession of certain items illegal from the date the bills take effect and into the future. It does not make it a crime for having possessed those items prior to the date the bill took effect. I am happy someone is challenging this, but I sure hope he doesn't actually use the ex post facto arguement as it is false and will not hold up (unless of course I missed something in the bills). From an news story about the bill Magazines with a capacity of more than 10 rounds and manufactured before 1994, which are currently legal, would have to be turned over to authorities or sold out of state within one year. If a magazine has a capacity between eight and 10, it would have to be retrofitted to only hold seven rounds Which is in no way ex post facto. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2013 4:42:59 AM EDT
[#25]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Not in NY, but I wish you fellas luck in this fight. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2013 4:43:04 AM EDT
[#26]
Quoted: I was with you till you posted "ex-facto law" which has nothing to do with the current bill that just passed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2013 4:43:56 AM EDT
[#27]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I was with you till you posted "ex-facto law" which has nothing to do with the current bill that just passed. This. Not ex post facto at all. Unless I missed it, this is in no way ex post facto. It makes possession of certain items illegal from the date the bills take effect and into the future. It does not make it a crime for having possessed those items prior to the date the bill took effect. I am happy someone is challenging this, but I sure hope he doesn't actually use the ex post facto arguement as it is false and will not hold up (unless of course I missed something in the bills). From an news story about the bill Magazines with a capacity of more than 10 rounds and manufactured before 1994, which are currently legal, would have to be turned over to authorities or sold out of state within one year. If a magazine has a capacity between eight and 10, it would have to be retrofitted to only hold seven rounds Which is in no way ex post facto. oh i see, sorry im not a lawyer, lol, in other news, sucks for new york people. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2013 4:46:12 AM EDT
[#28]
It is not an ex post facto..... it is better brought as a taking/14th Amendment due process.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2013 4:46:50 AM EDT
[#29]
Quoted: Quoted: [snip] Which is in no way ex post facto. oh i see, sorry im not a lawyer, lol, in other news, sucks for new york people. A simple example of ex post facto is if the government passed a law today that made anyone who had ever worn a hat a criminal. Then they started rounding up people who had been seen wearing hats last year, before the law was written. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2013 4:46:56 AM EDT
[#30]
I'll spread the word to my fam and friends in NY!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2013 4:47:12 AM EDT
[#31]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I was with you till you posted "ex-facto law" which has nothing to do with the current bill that just passed. Are you a lawyer? Can you say for certain how the courts may act? I am reminded of an opinion by Justice O'Connor regarding a case that involved birth control pills and essentially, she was weighing in that because of BC pills, decades of American women had been able to be in the workplace and to take away that would be wrong. How a judge may decide might not be just on the words alone. Can you afford to be nit picking when there is someone out there who is going up what appears to me to be your enemy. If all he is asking for is your name, is there any real disadvantage to joining his fight? ___________________________________________________________ Yes I can say for certain this is not "ex-facto law" If you say so......are you still willing to snub someone who is fighting your apparent enemy? Is there anyone better fighting right now against them? __________________________________________________________________________________________________ ("If you say so, Mr. Bond."--Scaramanga, (w,stte), "The Man With The Golden Gun") |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2013 4:49:14 AM EDT
[#32]
good luck fighting these fucktards. Maryland is just a few days behind you!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2013 4:53:23 AM EDT
[#33]
Quoted:
Lawyer : Jim Tresmond, Attorney in Buffalo, New York. Attorney phone is 716.202.4301 Successfully represented clients in the past on Second Amendment issues in NYS Supreme Court. This case is pro-bono for all the gun owners of New York. According to Mr. Tresmond the new ban is illegal as it is an ex-facto law taking away previously owned property and he intends to file this action in Federal Court. We are looking for as many as possible to add to CLASS ACTION CASE: SEND Your Name and EMAIL ADDRESS, Address and phone number to: [email protected] WE ARE COLLECTING AS MANY AS POSSIBLE AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE!!! I wish you guys the best in this fight. I am asking myself where the fuck is the NRA in this. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2013 4:56:36 AM EDT
[#34]
Hope he prevails under Miller and McDonald. Only hope we have.
It isn't ex post facto, as I understand it - |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2013 5:05:49 AM EDT
[#35]
Quoted:
Not in NY, but I wish you fellas luck in this fight. this. give them hell |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2013 5:06:47 AM EDT
[#36]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2013 5:12:08 AM EDT
[#37]
It has the underpinnings of an ex-post facto law in a way doesn't it?
I say this because, in one year, something you were legally allowed to own is no longer allowed and you must get rid of it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2013 5:15:04 AM EDT
[#38]
Bump for the Yankees
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2013 5:17:19 AM EDT
[#39]
You guys in NY are pissing in the wind.....wake up...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2013 5:43:32 AM EDT
[#40]
Quoted:
Not in NY, but I wish you fellas luck in this fight. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2013 7:04:49 AM EDT
[#41]
IDK, how this will go but I replied.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2013 7:09:27 AM EDT
[#42]
Is this legit? What law firm does he work with? Tha email seems a bit fishy...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2013 7:12:23 AM EDT
[#43]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Not in NY, but I wish you fellas luck in this fight. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2013 7:12:55 AM EDT
[#44]
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/rule-ny-safe-act-be-unconstitutional/W2KLT6t8
Also sign this!!! |
|
|
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.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
