User Panel
As a gun shop owner, retired police officer and state trooper, life member of the NRA, all I can say is
How many more lawsuits can we get against them? Joining the NYSRPA now and sending a donation. |
|
|
awesome
|
|
|
Originally Posted By dphill: I'm now a member of the NYSRPA, where do they hold the yearly banquet http://www.wallkillrodandgun.com/sclevnts.htm |
|
|
Originally Posted By dphill:
Originally Posted By nyrkba:
June 8th, Wallkill Rod & Gun Club. I'll need a little more than that, I'm a couple states away Thanks for hanging with us! |
|
|
OH YEAH!!!
LET'S GET 'EM!!! |
|
The facts, while interesting, are generally irrelevant.
|
I collected donations of $80.00 from a few people at work to send to NYSRPA.
I will add to that from myself also. Bill |
|
|
THIS IS GREAT STUFF
WORK TO MAKE THEM COWER |
|
|
Any word when the legal fund donation will be up on the site? I plan on donating quite a bit myself, and rallying friends and co-workers as well.
|
|
Fuck Obama
FUCK BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA |
Originally Posted By Gator:
Any word when the legal fund donation will be up on the site? I plan on donating quite a bit myself, and rallying friends and co-workers as well. Donate to NYSRPA and put LDF in the memo field. |
|
I mean if this goes tits up...
|
This is all from NYFirearms
[QUOTE=Maxb49;390943]Hello everyone! I decided to join this forum because many people are interested in, and a few are perplexed, by the case currently underway here in Buffalo. I am here to answer any questions you have about the lawsuit, relay important developments, and dispel any misconceptions. I have the inside track on this case and I can fill you in why many decisions were made the way they were made. Before we go any further, I would like to address a few issues: 1. The tin foil hat crowd who believes that Tresmond is working with Cuomo to deliberately lose the lawsuit needs to get that idea out of their head immediately. Mr. Tresmond, a veteran of the US Navy and a lifelong gun owner, is doing no such thing. 2. Tresmond was approached by a group of long standing clients who expressed serious concerns over how the NY SAFE Act was going to affect them. Being a concerned civil rights attorney, he initially set out to do what you would expect a good and ethical lawyer to do - defend the rights of his clients. When they realized how many millions of New Yorkers have been affected by this law and how many people were afraid of prosecution, they (Tresmond and his staff) sent out a message for anyone who felt that they were being adversely affected by the law. They simply wanted to offer protection and assistance to innocent people who were being vilified by New York's government. 3. The initial post, which was done by an assistant, made a slight mistake in the announcement of the case being an ex post facto challenge to the bill. While there is a case that would actually support the idea of a certain form of an ex post facto challenge, this is not at all part of the lawsuit. 4. This case was commenced an Article 78 Special Proceeding to avoid the problem of collateral estoppel (issue preclusion). In other words, this type of proceeding was chosen so that if Tresmond loses, even on the merits, the loss is localized and will not prevent future challenges to the bill. The folks working on this case are practicing attorneys and Constitutional scholars from around the country. They are not an special interest group, and they are not trying to diminish the good efforts of other gun rights groups to put an end to this anti-Constitutional rampage. 7. The legal team covered the filing fee. They never requested a single donation. If you have any other questions, feel free to ask. I will try my best to answer them. If I don't have the answer, I'll ask the legal team.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Maxb49;391049]The Tresmond case has the support of attorneys and professors from throughout New York State and America. There are Harvard educated Constitutional scholars assisting Mr. Tresmond in his approach, as well as other attorneys with impeccable backgrounds from other prestigious universities and law firms. Mr. Tresmond is well respected in Buffalo as an attorney who has defended his clients' rights. For years he defended the rights of abused and neglected children. The attorneys and support staff on this case wish to maintain a low profile due to the highly sensitive nature of the case. They have not been identified because they, including Tresmond, wanted to keep the focus on taking out the law. The focus of the case was always about voiding an unconstitutional law, not making a profit or a name for anyone. The attorneys and academics have more access to resources and information for the upcoming memorandum of law, hearings, trials, etc. if they maintain there anonymity. So, it's understandable that some may think this is one person handling this case alone. However, that impression simply isn't the reality. It's also important to note that so far, there is one and only one lawsuit against the SAFE Act. That's here in Erie County. The phones are still ringing nonstop, with a great majority of the people calling in to voice their support from downstate. It's our position that if other people want to hire lawyers to file lawsuits, that's great. Tresmond and the NYSRPA both did the right thing by avoiding federal court. This gets things cleared up at the trial level within the next few months rather than the next few years. As far as costs go, the total cost has been the filing fees. The team best able to work anonymously; in doing so, they are not precluded or denied access to vast bodies of legal resources. In remaining unidentified, they're able to interview and obtain inside information that they otherwise couldn't get. The email response is in the tens of thousands. There is simply no way everyone will be able to get a personal response, as much as Tresmond and the others wish to reply. And, as far as hearing goes, the New York State Attorney General apparently didn't feel comfortable going to court and asking for a summary dismissal on the 21st. The case obviously created a larger challenge for the State than they expected. It's also important to note that the New York Attorney General has been very cordial and professional in this matter. In this respect, gun owners are much better off with a respected attorney like Tresmond arguing the case than an abrasive unknown person from out of town whom the courts and opposing parties may view as hostile. Hostility doesn't win cases. Good arguments do.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Maxb49;391054]Sure, I can give you some insight here. Erie County SCOPE has been a great help. They have supported Mr. Tresmond in garnering support for the action. He also has spoken to the group and will keep them personally updated as things develop. Erie County SCOPE extended their help almost immediately after the case was announced, Erie County Sherrif Tim Howard has also been in contact, as have other sheriffs and law enforcement agents around the state. For that matter, the office has been contacted by assistant district attorneys, US Customs and Border Protection Officers, federal law enforcement agencies and other law enforcement personnelk requesting to be a part of this case. So, that should give you a picture of how much support the Buffalo lawsuit really has as opposed to what it may seem like from the limited perspective of Internet information. As far as the attorneys, a number of them are from Western New York. Others are from Albany, New York City, Long Island, and other parts of the state. Others are from Chicago, Boston, Washington D.C., and universities throughout the country. There have already been Several coordinated meetings of everyone involved. The team is already compiling a cache of expert witnesses, including gunsmiths, gun dealers, and other experts to testify in court. I don't think anyone expected this much, this quickly, but everyone has been working day and night so it's nice to see things come together.[/QUOTE] |
|
|
Originally Posted By widerstehe:
HOLY FUCK BATMAN AR15.com as a PLAINTIFF? AWESOME BEYOND AWESOME ETA: Damn, the legalese is giving me a raging boner. I just wish I could see the NAMES of CuHomo and all the state legislators that voted for it listed personally as defendants. Amazing how you can fucking HATE lawyers one day, and LOVE them the next. Agreed! |
|
|
edit: found what i was looking for...sry!
|
|
|
Good luck, fellas. Illinois is always seemingly under the same threat of similar ludicrous gun bans unfortunately.
|
|
|
I'm In.
http://www.nysrpa-pvf.org/ |
|
|
Donation sent.
Let loose the dogs of war! |
|
'the road less traveled' is often just a load of crap used to take the gullible down a path that most people know leads nowhere. -GKS452
"If that doesn't work, go pee on her to establish dominance." -TearsInRain< |
Originally Posted By gunz04:
Donation sent. Let loose the dogs of war! became a team member here yesterday after I saw ARFcom was taking a lead in this battle. Thank you! keep it up guys |
|
|
Originally Posted By winTTer:
Originally Posted By gunz04:
Donation sent. Let loose the dogs of war! became a team member here yesterday after I saw ARFcom was taking a lead in this battle. Thank you! keep it up guys Welcome aboard brother |
|
|
Retired JBT - Police Executive - Practicing Atty
NY, USA
|
Originally Posted By winTTer:
Originally Posted By gunz04:
Donation sent. Let loose the dogs of war! became a team member here yesterday after I saw ARFcom was taking a lead in this battle. Thank you! keep it up guys Welcome aboard... See u in Team Member Forum. Newbies bring the donuts! |
This information is a general statement of law and procedure and not a substitute for specific legal advice from a licenced attorney in your jurisdiction.
|
How about all NY gun owners buy their ammo in other states? The sales tax revenue to NY would shrink, and coumo would have less to spend on his socialist agenda. I drive down to PA, where a background check isn't needed to buy 22 shells. Long guns can also be purchased in other states, at least PA. If folks live further away from another state, they can car pool on weekends to make ammo runs. Of course, it would help if ammo was actually available on store shelves!
Can't wait until spring, we are going to sell our home and leave NY! |
|
|
Can somebody familiar with the lawsuit explain if this is true or not?
Not challenged by the lawsuit, but no less worrying to Second Amendment defenders, are the creation of a statewide gun registry (which usurps the local registries that previously obtained) and the requirement that gun owners undergo background checks through the New York NICS (National Instant Criminal Background Check System) in order to buy bullets — the first such rule in the country. Also unchallenged are the restrictions on existing weapons that prevent owners of grandfathered firearms from handing them down to their family members or selling them to neighbors or friends.
That is from an article on NRO here. |
|
NWRA - WCFOA - NYSRPA - NRA - GOA - SAF Lifetime Member
|
Originally Posted By Shqype:
Can somebody familiar with the lawsuit explain if this is true or not? Not challenged by the lawsuit, but no less worrying to Second Amendment defenders, are the creation of a statewide gun registry (which usurps the local registries that previously obtained) and the requirement that gun owners undergo background checks through the New York NICS (National Instant Criminal Background Check System) in order to buy bullets — the first such rule in the country. Also unchallenged are the restrictions on existing weapons that prevent owners of grandfathered firearms from handing them down to their family members or selling them to neighbors or friends.
That is from an article on NRO here. Outstanding article. Thanks for linking it. |
|
|
http://whatreallyhappened.com/es/content/“dick-act-1902”
Anybody even heard of this? Please enlighten me. I looked in the Library of Congress, IT IS THERE! Was drafted and passed June 28th of 1902 in Brooklyn, NY. Could this be more 'ammo' for the pending lawsuits? |
|
|
I was told that NYS made an offer- we keep our mags of any size, but no more than 7 rounds loaded- but the judge would not allow a plea and ordered the case to go forward.
No idea if, or what part, is actually true, just a gun store story. |
|
|
Originally Posted By schmukko:
http://whatreallyhappened.com/es/content/“dick-act-1902” Anybody even heard of this? Please enlighten me. I looked in the Library of Congress, IT IS THERE! Was drafted and passed June 28th of 1902 in Brooklyn, NY. Could this be more 'ammo' for the pending lawsuits? It's pretty much useless. See this for a summary: http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/dickact.asp Even if it were legally valuable, it's universally ignored, just like the Slaughterhouse case. Nobody is going to revisit it with any success. |
|
|
Originally Posted By Gator: Any word when the legal fund donation will be up on the site? I plan on donating quite a bit myself, and rallying friends and co-workers as well. Click here and put LDF in the 3rd address line. |
|
|
Originally Posted By Abom:
I was told that NYS made an offer- we keep our mags of any size, but no more than 7 rounds loaded- but the judge would not allow a plea and ordered the case to go forward. No idea if, or what part, is actually true, just a gun store story. If true, they (NYS) still do not get it. |
|
Blood stained palms pressed against the gates of virtue shall never know freedom
It is better to Reign in Hell than Serve in Heaven----Milton The darkness under a whore's bed sheets |
Originally Posted By RabidMonkeyPox:
Originally Posted By Abom:
I was told that NYS made an offer- we keep our mags of any size, but no more than 7 rounds loaded- but the judge would not allow a plea and ordered the case to go forward. No idea if, or what part, is actually true, just a gun store story. If true, they (NYS) still do not get it. Trying to wrap my head around this. I see ways this can be considered good, and of course bad. Legal experts, is this good or bad? Or just standard procedure? |
|
NRA Certified Basic Instructor
NRA Certified Pistol Instructor |
Are magpul AFG's considered forgrips? and are they illegal in NY and Connecticut now?
|
|
|
Originally Posted By jaykap10509:
Are magpul AFG's considered forgrips? and are they illegal in NY and Connecticut now? You answered your question AFG® - Angled Fore Grip They are not legal on semi-auto rifles that accept detachable magazines purchased after 1-15-13 |
|
|
If it's designed for ergonomics and comfort, then it's illegal. Pretty simple. NY is against ergonomics.
|
|
"I don't like repeat offenders. I like dead offenders." - The Nuge
"I've seen freedom, smelled its sweet perfume. And then I had to drive back home." - Me |
Anything new? Any news?
|
|
|
Both sides are due in court Sept. 12.
|
|
|
August 23, 2013 Update: Senator Kathy Marchione files a Amicus Curiae in support of our lawsuit.
|
|
|
|
Waiting for an update myself
|
|
NRA, GOA, NYSRPA, & TEA PARTY 3%'R. You want it? FUAC!
|
NYS should have a recall election just like CO. How do we get it on the ballot?
|
|
|
NRA Certified Basic Instructor
NRA Certified Pistol Instructor |
Yesterday's scheduled court hearing on our SAFE lawsuit was postponed. No new date has been set yet. |
|
|
Originally Posted By rkbar15: Yesterday's scheduled court hearing on our SAFE lawsuit was postponed. No new date has been set yet. Love to hear why? Did the State come up with some lame ass excuse? I see no reason to think this is nothing more than a delay tactic on their part to have as much of this "law" fully take effect before it reaches the court. Fucking pussies, anyone who's read the state briefs knows full well they're going to have their asses handed to them, so it's delay, delay, delay. |
|
"We all have it coming, kid..." - William Munny
|
|
NRA, GOA, NYSRPA, & TEA PARTY 3%'R. You want it? FUAC!
|
Originally Posted By cldsandwch: Tresmond UPDATE !! http://www.nyfirearms.com/forums/laws-politics/61266-tresmond-lawsuit-update-dywinski-9-17-13-a.html View Quote Just so there is no confusion that is an update for the Tresmond Dywinski NY state court case and not the federal NYSRPA U.S. District court case. |
|
|
Thank you sir, for the added clarification.
|
|
NRA, GOA, NYSRPA, & TEA PARTY 3%'R. You want it? FUAC!
|
Originally Posted By cldsandwch:
Tresmond UPDATE !! http://www.nyfirearms.com/forums/laws-politics/61266-tresmond-lawsuit-update-dywinski-9-17-13-a.html View Quote |
|
I mean if this goes tits up...
|
Originally Posted By rkbar15:
Just so there is no confusion that is an update for the Tresmond Dywinski NY state court case and not the federal NYSRPA U.S. District court case. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally Posted By rkbar15:
Originally Posted By cldsandwch:
Tresmond UPDATE !! http://www.nyfirearms.com/forums/laws-politics/61266-tresmond-lawsuit-update-dywinski-9-17-13-a.html Just so there is no confusion that is an update for the Tresmond Dywinski NY state court case and not the federal NYSRPA U.S. District court case. So if I am reading it right, if they win this, we'll be back to preban stuff being OK and no registration required? but the ammo portion will be attacked separately? |
|
|
The good news is that our good news is SO good, we can't tell you about it.
|
|
NWRA - WCFOA - NYSRPA - GOA - NRA Lifetime Member - SAF Lifetime Member
|
|
Update at the NYSRPA site
October 31, 2013 Update: The State has requested a motion for summary judgement in an attempt to have our lawsuit thrown out. View Quote |
|
|
Update from TK.
November 25, 2013 Ladies and Gentlemen, As a method of providing an update on our fight to overturn New York’s SAFE Act ("the Act”), we are providing this letter, in "Q and A” form, with the answers to questions you might have concerning the case. Q: What is the current status of the proceedings in the New York action? As you are aware, in the beginning of the case, we moved for a preliminary injunction. In this motion, we ask the Court to stop the provisions of the SAFE Act from taking effect while the lawsuit is ongoing. In particular, we are seeking the court to enjoin the enforcement of the following provisions of the law: 1. The section making it unlawful to possess an ammunition feeding device containing more than seven rounds of ammunition. 2. The sections making it unlawful to possess, transport, ship, or dispose of, a large capacity ammunition feeding device (we are alternatively seeking to enjoin these provisions as applied to any such device manufactured before September 13, 1994). 3. Certain unintelligible portions of the section making it unlawful to possess a large capacity ammunition feeding device (if the court does not enjoin the entire section). 4. The sections which make it unlawful to possess a device that can be readily restored or converted to accept more than ten rounds of ammunition.” 5. The sections which make it unlawful to possess a device that can be readily restored or converted to accept more than ten rounds of ammunition, or a device that holds more than ten rounds as applied to tubular magazines. 6. The sections which define an "assault weapon” in part as certain rifles and shotguns as having a folding or telescoping stock, a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon, or a thumbhole stock. 7. The sections which define an "assault weapon” as a semiautomatic shotgun with a fixed magazine capacity in excess of seven rounds or an ability to accept a detachable magazine. The Defendants have opposed our Motion for Preliminary Injunction and have filed their own Motion to Dismiss and for Summary Judgment, which asks the Court to enter judgment determining that the SAFE Act is valid. In response to the State’s Motion for Summary Judgment, we have filed our own Motion for Summary Judgment. The briefing on these motions (which has been extensive) is complete. Q: What will happen next? Since briefing is complete, we believe the Court will schedule an oral argument on the motions. Normally, for cases involving these controversial of issues, courts will hold an oral argument, although the Court is not required to do so; as the issues involved in the motions are purely legal, no testimony is required and the Court may just rule on the papers that have been filed. We do not know, however, if the Court will have a hearing and when it will happen. The procedural rules do not require the Court either to set a hearing or to decide the motion within a specified amount of time. The time in which a court sets a motion for hearing and issues a decision on a matter is impacted by several factors, such as the judge’s schedule, pressing criminal trials, and the complexity of the issues involved. Every judge handles his or her caseload differently. Given the issues involved, we believe the Court will do its best to hear and decide the motions as quickly as possible, but ultimately we have no control over that time frame. We have conveyed to the Court, and will continue to convey to the Court, our desire to move this matter along as quickly as possible. Q: Will we get relief before January 15, 2014, the effective date of the requirement that all previously grandfathered magazines of more than 10 rounds must be discarded or sold out of state? Possibly, but unlikely. While we understand that this portion of the law is a source of particular anger with members, the chance of the Court ruling to strike down or otherwise enjoin the law before that date really depends on how quickly the Court decides to either hold a hearing on our motion for preliminary injunction or issue a decision. As mentioned earlier, the Court has almost complete control over its schedule. As described above, there are three motions pending: our Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Defendants Motion to Dismiss and for Summary Judgment, and our own Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court may rule on these motions at the same time, or it may rule on them separately. The Motion for Preliminary Injunction asks the Court to enjoin, or stop, the enforcement of certain provisions of the Act while the lawsuit is ongoing. Concerning this motion, the Court has two options: (1) It can grant (either in whole or in part) our preliminary injunction request, which would stop the provisions described above from being enforced while the lawsuit is ongoing; or (2) It can deny our preliminary injunction request, which would not stop the provisions described above from being enforced while the lawsuit is ongoing. The second and third motions are the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss or for Summary Judgment and our own Motion for Summary Judgment. If the Court grants the State’s motion in its entirety, then the case will be dismissed in favor of the Defendants. Similarly, if the Court grants our own Motion for Summary Judgment, then judgment will enter in favor of the plaintiffs. If the Court grants part of the Defendants’ motion, than the case will be dismissed in favor of the Defendants as to those parts of the law upon which the Court grants the motion. The same holds true, obviously, if the Court grants the Plaintiffs’ Motion in part. If the Court denies the motions in their entirety, then the case would continue to proceed as it is styled with all of our claims intact. Given the complexity of the issues raised in the motions and the current caseload of the Court, it is unlikely (but not impossible) that the Court will rule on our motion for preliminary injunction before January 15. We are sending a letter to the Court trying to get the Court to expedite a hearing on our preliminary injunction motion to stop the enforcement of the law, but it is unlikely that the Court will take action before the January 15, date. Q: How is this lawsuit affected by other lawsuits challenging the NY law? Many times when a law is enacted that infringes core rights, like the Act, there are multiple lawsuits filed seeking to stop the law from taking effect or otherwise being enforced. Sometimes, these actions proceed in harmony with each other; most times, they do not. For example, there have been other lawsuits filed which challenge the SAFE Act on various grounds that we may or may not have raised in our lawsuit. One suit has challenged the emergency manner in which the SAFE Act was adopted. This was a potential basis for challenging the law that we considered, but rejected, at the onset of this litigation: our analysis and experience showed that courts do not get involved with the merits of "emergency” determinations, and have historically taken a completely permissive attitude towards legislative circumvention of these aging requirements. We therefore believe that a challenge on this basis would be quickly rejected (as the one brought by Robert Schulz on this same basis has been), would detract from the strong arguments we have prepared, and could cause us to lose credibility with the court. We believe that the lawsuit we have brought is well-crafted, and that the record supports the relief we are seeking. This was the product of a lengthy, deliberative process in which we analyzed many different approaches. Having a law invalidated is not an easy thing to accomplish, and we believe that the approach we have adopted and implemented gives us the best chance of success. This may be different from the approach taken by plaintiffs in other lawsuits, but it is the one that we believe gives us the greatest chance of prevailing in the end. We hope this gives you an accurate picture of where things currently stand in this lawsuit. If you have follow up questions about any of the matters discussed in this letter, or the case in general, please do not hesitate to contact us. We welcome your call. Thank you. Cogito ergo sum armati |
|
|
Critique of ruling is up at NYSRPA site
|
|
|
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.