This is gonna take crackerjack timing, Wang.
Joined:
Apr 2008
Posts:
1143
EE: 100% (3)
NY, USA
|
So does New York State now go to the NYS Appellate Court and request a stay pending an appeal by the state? I never consider any of this a victory until all appeals are exhausted, or dismissed with prejudice, and there is a final ruling.
It is good news but I am not cracking open a bottle just yet. How many times have we seen pro-2nd rulings like the 4th Circuit AWB ruling in Maryland or 9th Circuit right-to-carry ruling that get overturned on an appeal? |
Thank You NOLO!
|
Damn great work!!!
So was this in the 2nd circuit? Or a lower federal court? Will it be appealed? I can't imagine it would be appealed to SCOTUS...ha. Wow though...liberal judge knew he couldn't rule against you, but just HAD to throw this in...Since WHEN do judges give such advice to the state? What bullshit...Here comes tasers on pistol permits, and power limits that effectively make it a static shock... To be clear, this conclusion does not foreclose thepossibility that some restriction(s) on the possession and/or use of tasers and stun gunswould be permissible under the Second Amendment. Other states have already donethis.
. § 941.295(2g)(b) (permitting possession of "electric weapon" inhome or place of business). New York might consider doing so as well. |
|
Originally Posted By DaveM4P99:
Damn great work!!! So was this in the 2nd circuit? Or a lower federal court? Will it be appealed? I can't imagine it would be appealed to SCOTUS...ha. Wow though...liberal judge knew he couldn't rule against you, but just HAD to throw this in...Since WHEN do judges give such advice to the state? What bullshit...Here comes tasers on pistol permits, and power limits that effectively make it a static shock... Originally Posted By DaveM4P99:
Damn great work!!! So was this in the 2nd circuit? Or a lower federal court? Will it be appealed? I can't imagine it would be appealed to SCOTUS...ha. Wow though...liberal judge knew he couldn't rule against you, but just HAD to throw this in...Since WHEN do judges give such advice to the state? What bullshit...Here comes tasers on pistol permits, and power limits that effectively make it a static shock... To be clear, this conclusion does not foreclose thepossibility that some restriction(s) on the possession and/or use of tasers and stun gunswould be permissible under the Second Amendment. Other states have already donethis.
. 941.295(2g)(b) (permitting possession of "electric weapon" inhome or place of business). New York might consider doing so as well. 
As I said above, I ain't crackin' open the bottle yet... |
|
Originally Posted By batjka104: Do they have serial numbers? |
We're not worthy 
| This was discussed on Andrew Hollister's radio show today. Great job! Though, there is a part that is troubling... the whole "even in the home" part, and "some restrictions" part. But, I do have a small, flickering, glimmer of hope, the hope that's down a long hallway, with an open floor, with alligators, that's about a mile long, that this may be used to fight the ban on "common" weapons in general. |
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 batjka104: Do they have serial numbers? 
So I’d wholly expect FUAC/NYS’ registration scheme to include every serialized piece of the Taser being recorded/linked to you. |
When they kick out your front door
How you gonna come?
With your hands on your head
Or on the trigger of your gun?
How you gonna come?
With your hands on your head
Or on the trigger of your gun?
| It's official. New York has not and will not appeal the Taser/stun gun decision. There is a bill winding its way through the senate re: possession. I've reached out to the sponsors of said bill and will report back. |
Sometimes, a flame can be utterly extinguished. Sometimes, a flame can shrink and waver, but sometimes a flame refuses to go out. It flares up from the faintest ember to illuminate the darkness, to burn in spite of overwhelming odds.
|
Originally Posted By DaveM4P99:
Huh I didn't realize you actually reached out to legislators about proposed bills! Are you, in a way, threatening a followup lawsuit by doing so? 
|
Sometimes, a flame can be utterly extinguished. Sometimes, a flame can shrink and waver, but sometimes a flame refuses to go out. It flares up from the faintest ember to illuminate the darkness, to burn in spite of overwhelming odds.
|
Originally Posted By NoloContendere:
It's official. New York has not and will not appeal the Taser/stun gun decision. There is a bill winding its way through the senate re: possession. I've reached out to the sponsors of said bill and will report back. https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2019/s4849 |
|
Originally Posted By PNFLDS: You mean this one? https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2019/s4849 It's the same as pepper spray in NY since you have to buy at an FFL, and it's not as powerful...except you can't carry it like pepper spray. And people who live in counties that don't issue carry permits still can't carry a stun gun. Thanks NY politicians...assholes. |
|
Originally Posted By PNFLDS:
You mean this one? https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2019/s4849 Originally Posted By PNFLDS:
Originally Posted By NoloContendere:
It's official. New York has not and will not appeal the Taser/stun gun decision. There is a bill winding its way through the senate re: possession. I've reached out to the sponsors of said bill and will report back. https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2019/s4849 |
Sometimes, a flame can be utterly extinguished. Sometimes, a flame can shrink and waver, but sometimes a flame refuses to go out. It flares up from the faintest ember to illuminate the darkness, to burn in spite of overwhelming odds.
|
Lol. This dude is
Marc Timpano Lieutenant Commanding Officer Pistol License Section 516-573-7559 On March 22, 2019, the US District Court for the Northern District of New York held that Section 265.01(1) of the NYS Penal as applied to “electronic dart guns” and “electronic stun guns” must be invalidated as unconstitutional. The Court held that tasers and stun guns are in “common use” because the State failed to meet its burden rebutting the prima facie presumption of Second Amend protection that extends to all bearable arms. The State also did not offer a basis to rebut the presumption that tasers and stun guns are typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as self-defense. The Court held that there is no indication that tasers or stun guns have some sort of “special propensity for unlawful use” or that these arms are so “dangerous and usual” that they fall entirely outside the scope of the Second Amendment. Therefore, the Court found that tasers and stun guns are in common use and are typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes like self-defense. The Court also held that a complete ban on the civilian possession and use of tasers and stun guns implicates the Second Amendment right of law-abiding citizens to protect themselves in their own homes with a weapon commonly used for that purpose. The Court held that after a review of the legislative history, a complete ban on tasers and stun guns is not reasonably based on any substantial evidence considered by the state legislature. The State did not introduce substantial evidence from which it could be reasonably inferred that complete bans on tasers and stun guns, even ones kept in the home of a law-abiding citizen, are “substantially related” to the compelling interests in public safety and crime prevention. However, this holding IS NOT binding on the Eastern District of New York, and therefore IS NOT binding on the Department, nor is it even persuasive authority. The NDNY did not provide the broad, declaratory relief that the Plaintiff was seeking. Rather, the remedy was only to resolve the dispute amongst the parties of the action. By declining to grant declaratory relief, the NDNY did not intend the decision to be precedent over all courts in the Second Circuit. Therefore, status quo is maintained and the possession/use of tasers and stuns is prohibited in jurisdictions within the Eastern District of New York pursuant to Penal Law Sec. 265.01(1)
|
Sometimes, a flame can be utterly extinguished. Sometimes, a flame can shrink and waver, but sometimes a flame refuses to go out. It flares up from the faintest ember to illuminate the darkness, to burn in spite of overwhelming odds.
|
Originally Posted By NoloContendere:
Lol. This dude is
Marc Timpano Lieutenant Commanding Officer Pistol License Section 516-573-7559 |
|
Originally Posted By P400:
Nassau County hates, HATES having residents that can legally own weapons of any kind. You'll hear crap like "Firearm ownership is a privilege, not a right" from these people all the time. I think it is even written in their licensing handbook. |
*post contains personal opinion only and should not be considered information released in an official capacity*
0110001101101100011010010110001101101011
0110001101101100011010010110001101101011
|
Originally Posted By P400:
Nassau County hates, HATES having residents that can legally own weapons of any kind. You'll hear crap like "Firearm ownership is a privilege, not a right" from these people all the time. I think it is even written in their licensing handbook. Originally Posted By P400:
Originally Posted By NoloContendere:
Lol. This dude is
Marc Timpano Lieutenant Commanding Officer Pistol License Section 516-573-7559 |
|
Originally Posted By NoloContendere:
Lol. This dude is
Marc Timpano Lieutenant Commanding Officer Pistol License Section 516-573-7559 On March 22, 2019, the US District Court for the Northern District of New York held that Section 265.01(1) of the NYS Penal as applied to "electronic dart guns" and "electronic stun guns" must be invalidated as unconstitutional. The Court held that tasers and stun guns are in "common use" because the State failed to meet its burden rebutting the prima facie presumption of Second Amend protection that extends to all bearable arms. The State also did not offer a basis to rebut the presumption that tasers and stun guns are typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as self-defense. The Court held that there is no indication that tasers or stun guns have some sort of "special propensity for unlawful use" or that these arms are so "dangerous and usual" that they fall entirely outside the scope of the Second Amendment. Therefore, the Court found that tasers and stun guns are in common use and are typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes like self-defense. The Court also held that a complete ban on the civilian possession and use of tasers and stun guns implicates the Second Amendment right of law-abiding citizens to protect themselves in their own homes with a weapon commonly used for that purpose. The Court held that after a review of the legislative history, a complete ban on tasers and stun guns is not reasonably based on any substantial evidence considered by the state legislature. The State did not introduce substantial evidence from which it could be reasonably inferred that complete bans on tasers and stun guns, even ones kept in the home of a law-abiding citizen, are "substantially related" to the compelling interests in public safety and crime prevention. However, this holding IS NOT binding on the Eastern District of New York, and therefore IS NOT binding on the Department, nor is it even persuasive authority. The NDNY did not provide the broad, declaratory relief that the Plaintiff was seeking. Rather, the remedy was only to resolve the dispute amongst the parties of the action. By declining to grant declaratory relief, the NDNY did not intend the decision to be precedent over all courts in the Second Circuit. Therefore, status quo is maintained and the possession/use of tasers and stuns is prohibited in jurisdictions within the Eastern District of New York pursuant to Penal Law Sec. 265.01(1) |
Memento, homo, quia pulvis es, et in pulverem reverteris.
|
Originally Posted By P400:
Nassau County hates, HATES having residents that can legally own weapons of any kind. You'll hear crap like "Firearm ownership is a privilege, not a right" from these people all the time. I think it is even written in their licensing handbook. Originally Posted By P400:
Originally Posted By NoloContendere:
Lol. This dude is
Marc Timpano Lieutenant Commanding Officer Pistol License Section 516-573-7559 
|
Memento, homo, quia pulvis es, et in pulverem reverteris.
|
Originally Posted By Aimless:
Same thing happened when the 7 in 10 ammo ban was declared unconstitutional in western district. Police and prosecutors in other districts said they would continue to enforce
I'm pretty sure that when the 2nd Circuit affirmed the ruling on 7/10, it became law throughout the Circuit. But I'll bet that my DA would still prosecute. |
Memento, homo, quia pulvis es, et in pulverem reverteris.
|
Originally Posted By BushBoar:
I've seen several quotes by otherwise competent prosecutors arguing that because it was a federal court, it had no bearing on state law.
I'm pretty sure that when the 2nd Circuit affirmed the ruling on 7/10, it became law throughout the Circuit. But I'll bet that my DA would still prosecute. Originally Posted By BushBoar:
Originally Posted By Aimless:
Same thing happened when the 7 in 10 ammo ban was declared unconstitutional in western district. Police and prosecutors in other districts said they would continue to enforce
I'm pretty sure that when the 2nd Circuit affirmed the ruling on 7/10, it became law throughout the Circuit. But I'll bet that my DA would still prosecute. |
|
Nolo, a serious question.
Having now seen the depths of the shit show that is NY, are you shocked at this latest development? If you were to explain this case (NYs responses, the timeline, etc) to your peers in the legal community, would they believe you at first blush before looking up everything, or would they think you're blowing smoke up their ass? What can we as NY'ers do to truly explain to everyone that we're not exaggerating when talking about how badly we get screwed? |
| You can talk untill your blue in the face... They are going to do what they want. At this point, regardless of what courts/politicians pass, LE is doing what it feels like. The mug shot thing is another example... They are just a bunch of thugs w/ guns... And they want to be the only ones w/ them. |
|
Originally Posted By BushBoar:
I've seen several quotes by otherwise competent prosecutors arguing that because it was a federal court, it had no bearing on state law.
I'm pretty sure that when the 2nd Circuit affirmed the ruling on 7/10, it became law throughout the Circuit. But I'll bet that my DA would still prosecute. |
|
Originally Posted By BushBoar:
I've seen several quotes by otherwise competent prosecutors arguing that because it was a federal court, it had no bearing on state law.
I'm pretty sure that when the 2nd Circuit affirmed the ruling on 7/10, it became law throughout the Circuit. But I'll bet that my DA would still prosecute. https://www.syracuse.com/crime/2017/05/onondaga_county_da_others_to_go_before_federal_jury_for_civil_rights_lawsuit.html |
| I spoke to sergeant mumblename today.... y’all hang tight. I’m coming back. |
Sometimes, a flame can be utterly extinguished. Sometimes, a flame can shrink and waver, but sometimes a flame refuses to go out. It flares up from the faintest ember to illuminate the darkness, to burn in spite of overwhelming odds.
|
Originally Posted By Aimless:
He doesn't care if he's sued https://www.syracuse.com/crime/2017/05/onondaga_county_da_others_to_go_before_federal_jury_for_civil_rights_lawsuit.html |
Sometimes, a flame can be utterly extinguished. Sometimes, a flame can shrink and waver, but sometimes a flame refuses to go out. It flares up from the faintest ember to illuminate the darkness, to burn in spite of overwhelming odds.
|
Originally Posted By NoloContendere:
I spoke to sergeant mumblename today.... y’all hang tight. I’m coming back. Your efforts are greatly appreciated. 
|
Join the Community
Your next conversation starts here.
Create your free account to join discussions, share your experience, save topics, and connect with the AR15.COM community.
- Join discussions
- Follow topics and replies
- Connect with fellow enthusiasts
Already a member? Sign in
Stay informed by subscribing to our Newsletter