This is so true. Attorneys around the state are really fed up with "major players" telling other people to step aside and leave this up to them. In fact, if the organizations attorneys are doing this, or thinking of doing this, they need to stop and realize that any such action is an offense that can be taken to the attorney grievance committee. It's not OK for attorneys to contact plaintiffs or other attorneys and tell them to not file suit for their benefit. Just imagine the consequences for doing that with an issue other than gun rights (insurance litigation, wills/estates/trusts, banking law, etc). Major, major problem. Even bigger ethical problem when an attorney calls the attorney of a client and asks them to sink the filing of their clients case for the benefit of the original attorney and their organization. That's actually criminal, and...well, I won't go into further detail. It suffices to say that's not kosher.
Dywinski v. State Of New York (SAFE Act Challenge)
- Thread starter Brian Pfleuger
- Start date
This is so true. Attorneys around the state are really fed up with "major players" telling other people to step aside and leave this up to them. In fact, if the organizations attorneys are doing this, or thinking of doing this, they need to stop and realize that any such action is an offense that can be taken to the attorney grievance committee. It's not OK for attorneys to contact plaintiffs or other attorneys and tell them to not file suit for their benefit. Just imagine the consequences for doing that with an issue other than gun rights (insurance litigation, wills/estates/trusts, banking law, etc). Major, major problem. Even bigger ethical problem when an attorney calls the attorney of a client and asks them to sink the filing of their clients case for the benefit of the original attorney and their organization. That's actually criminal, and...well, I won't go into further detail. It suffices to say that's not kosher.
I hope for all of our sakes that before someone files a lawsuit they bounce it off of the other leading players on our side, to get their perspective on strategy, potential consequences of losing and how a win or a loss will effect other cases in the pipeline. If all players on our side are not doing that, we are going to lose in the long term.
Max, the fact that this is a State case and not a federal case, eases my personal concerns. The distinction between the two are worlds apart.
I will say that I distrust the NRA's litigation efforts in any of this. Their "team" is simply not conversant with civil rights litigation.
I will also say that it was the NRA that was issuing, for the most part, the...um, cautionary note. The SAF was simply worried where they were going to file. I understand that Gura, while cautious, was not entirely opposed to the filing of a State case.
As it stands, I do eagerly await a read of the complaint.
I will say that I distrust the NRA's litigation efforts in any of this. Their "team" is simply not conversant with civil rights litigation.
I will also say that it was the NRA that was issuing, for the most part, the...um, cautionary note. The SAF was simply worried where they were going to file. I understand that Gura, while cautious, was not entirely opposed to the filing of a State case.
As it stands, I do eagerly await a read of the complaint.
Dr Big Bird PhD
New member
Thank you for clarification Maxb4.
Can this lawsuit reach SCOTUS or will it stay entirely in NYS
Can this lawsuit reach SCOTUS or will it stay entirely in NYS
cajunboy2k
New member
If the lawsuit is successful and the Hi-Cap ban is lifted, I will buy 1 full cap magazine for the first New Yorker who contacts me on this board. Reasonably priced.
CB2K
CB2K
Yes, it can reach the United States Supreme Court and that was the point of filing the case in New York State Supreme Court. Going through the State trial courts places the case on a fast track to Supreme Court review. Federal court could tie this case up at the trial level for years. That's why you didn't see the NYSRPA file a Federal suit either. Although on one hand it's to see that organization try to race Mr. Tresmond court, on the other hand, it's humorous to see attorneys from the law firm who filed the NYSRPA's notice of claim actually attempted to contact Mr. Tresmond trying to garner information, arguments and strategy (Al, I'll send more information in a PM) to use in a "race" to court. The point is to strike the law, not race each other in court. For those who are worried that they haven't seen Mr. Tresmond's litigation skills or heard of him in national firearms litigation, rest assured: Mr. Tresmond may not at the moment be as well known as Alan Gura, but he has access to every resource as Mr. Gura, with a comparable staff assisting him on the case that is comprised of well known Constitutional law scholars from around the country.
Dr Big Bird PhD
New member
Thanks Max. I was asking because I would like to see a SCOTUS ruling on a "AWB" style law and hi-cap magazines so that my state can get rid of their current statues.
Having a 10 round magazine with a polymer extension on the bottom to imitate the length of 30 rds is embarrassing
Having a 10 round magazine with a polymer extension on the bottom to imitate the length of 30 rds is embarrassing
Update
The law firm is making public its centerpiece signature attack on the SAFE Act.
According to Tresmond and his team, the SAFE Act's registration registration requirement violates the precedent set forth in Haynes v. United States. This was a landslide 7-1 decision from the liberal 1968 Supreme Court, which held that registration requirements are virtually unenforceable for rifles that are already owned by violate the Fifth Amendment's protection against self incrimination. Furthermore, the Act commits a violation of the 14th Amendmen's Equal Protection clause, because individuals who disobey the assault weapons registration requirement under PL 400.00 subdivision 16(a) and thereby become felons, will be afforded full protection by the law under the Haynes doctrine while law abiding citizens will be forced to circumscribe their liberty. This devastating attack upon the assault weapons registration program, the piece de resistance of the NY SAFE Act, will be difficult for the Attorney General to overcome.
More to come...
The law firm is making public its centerpiece signature attack on the SAFE Act.
According to Tresmond and his team, the SAFE Act's registration registration requirement violates the precedent set forth in Haynes v. United States. This was a landslide 7-1 decision from the liberal 1968 Supreme Court, which held that registration requirements are virtually unenforceable for rifles that are already owned by violate the Fifth Amendment's protection against self incrimination. Furthermore, the Act commits a violation of the 14th Amendmen's Equal Protection clause, because individuals who disobey the assault weapons registration requirement under PL 400.00 subdivision 16(a) and thereby become felons, will be afforded full protection by the law under the Haynes doctrine while law abiding citizens will be forced to circumscribe their liberty. This devastating attack upon the assault weapons registration program, the piece de resistance of the NY SAFE Act, will be difficult for the Attorney General to overcome.
More to come...
2ndsojourn
New member
^^^ Does the entire SAFE act then get thrown out, or just that part of it?
SurplusShooter
New member
Interesting... I ope they proceed with caution from here on about what they attack on the "SAFE" act.
Dr Big Bird PhD
New member
I hope the magazine limit is absolutely demolished in its entirety.
The ban was attacked with the with the overbreadth doctrine.
The magazine ban actually outlaws the 7 shot Remington 870 and similar pump action shotguns due to the availability of 1.75" shells.
Shotguns are protected by the common use doctrine. All in all, this is a good lawsuit.
The magazine ban actually outlaws the 7 shot Remington 870 and similar pump action shotguns due to the availability of 1.75" shells.
Shotguns are protected by the common use doctrine. All in all, this is a good lawsuit.
Thanks everyone for following this thread!
Just throwing this hypothetical out there - please give me your honest opinion:
Would Governor Cuomo survive the political backlash if the average 12 gauge shotgun were confiscated, given how prevalent this gun is in the American culture?
(This is a very important hypothetical)
Just throwing this hypothetical out there - please give me your honest opinion:
Would Governor Cuomo survive the political backlash if the average 12 gauge shotgun were confiscated, given how prevalent this gun is in the American culture?
(This is a very important hypothetical)
Willie Sutton
Moderator
^^ The answer is "are you kidding?"
He would be voted out in the next election. Zero doubt. Even those who are completely agaist handguns and EBR's understand that a Shotgun is (generally) mainly a sporting implement for both the landed gentry and the average joe.
Willie
.
He would be voted out in the next election. Zero doubt. Even those who are completely agaist handguns and EBR's understand that a Shotgun is (generally) mainly a sporting implement for both the landed gentry and the average joe.
Willie
.
2ndsojourn
New member
Yeah. Even the Brits are allowed to have a shotgun.
That's exactly what everyone over here was thinking. And we are positive that Heller protects shotguns under the common usage doctrine.
Here's the problem: The act exempts standard pump action shotguns from the assault weapons category, but not from the large capacity ammunition feeding device category. The Remington 870, and like guns, hold 7 rounds, right? Yes, when measured with 3" shells. But shell length is not uniform! How many 1 3/4" shells can the 7 shot Remington 870 hold? Answer: At least 12. Ergo, by the letter of the law, the 870 with its integral magazine that cannot be irreversibly modified is a large capacity ammunition feeding device, the possession of which will soon be a misdemeanor offense. Think about it. If the world's most popular shotgun is protected by Heller, then the amendments to Penal Law 265 are overbroad.
Of course, this was another charge raised in the suit. Petitioners and sellers have a legitimate fear of prosecution if they want to exercise their right to buy or sell an 870, post-SAFE Act. Scary, isn't it?
Here's the problem: The act exempts standard pump action shotguns from the assault weapons category, but not from the large capacity ammunition feeding device category. The Remington 870, and like guns, hold 7 rounds, right? Yes, when measured with 3" shells. But shell length is not uniform! How many 1 3/4" shells can the 7 shot Remington 870 hold? Answer: At least 12. Ergo, by the letter of the law, the 870 with its integral magazine that cannot be irreversibly modified is a large capacity ammunition feeding device, the possession of which will soon be a misdemeanor offense. Think about it. If the world's most popular shotgun is protected by Heller, then the amendments to Penal Law 265 are overbroad.
Of course, this was another charge raised in the suit. Petitioners and sellers have a legitimate fear of prosecution if they want to exercise their right to buy or sell an 870, post-SAFE Act. Scary, isn't it?
Willie Sutton
Moderator
And we are positive that Heller protects shotguns under the common usage doctrine.
Then it should protect the AR-15, inarguably the most commonly sold centerfire rifle in the USA. It's the modern-day lever action Winchester.
Speaking of lever action Winchesters... Check the capacities of these common cowboy rifles.
None are less than 9 and some are 13....
Let's start out with the most elderly "modern" repeater, the Henry:
http://www.uberti.com/firearms/1860-henry.php
And the 1866 is no exception to the 13 shots rule:
http://www.uberti.com/firearms/1866-yellowboy.php
Who could ban an 1873 lever action rifle with a straight face?
http://www.uberti.com/firearms/1873-rifle-and-carbine.php
Great Grand-pops deer rifle upstate might just be a Winchester 1892. Magazine capacity on that deer assault-weapon? 15 (plus one in the chamber).
And the biggie: THE penultimate deer rifle in New York is the 1894 Winchester. While carbines outnumber rifles, there are plenty of rifles about. Those hold, err... NINE.
I bet the local farmers are not gonna like this one bit...
Go for the throat. The best fight is one that's over before the other guy knows it's begun.
Willie
.
Then it should protect the AR-15, inarguably the most commonly sold centerfire rifle in the USA. It's the modern-day lever action Winchester.
Speaking of lever action Winchesters... Check the capacities of these common cowboy rifles.
None are less than 9 and some are 13....
Let's start out with the most elderly "modern" repeater, the Henry:
http://www.uberti.com/firearms/1860-henry.php
And the 1866 is no exception to the 13 shots rule:
http://www.uberti.com/firearms/1866-yellowboy.php
Who could ban an 1873 lever action rifle with a straight face?
http://www.uberti.com/firearms/1873-rifle-and-carbine.php
Great Grand-pops deer rifle upstate might just be a Winchester 1892. Magazine capacity on that deer assault-weapon? 15 (plus one in the chamber).
And the biggie: THE penultimate deer rifle in New York is the 1894 Winchester. While carbines outnumber rifles, there are plenty of rifles about. Those hold, err... NINE.
I bet the local farmers are not gonna like this one bit...
Go for the throat. The best fight is one that's over before the other guy knows it's begun.
Willie
.
Last edited: