The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post - Dywinski v. State Of New York (SAFE Act Challenge)

Maxb49 · February 5, 2013, 05:06 PM

Thanks Brian. The law office, and Mr. Tresmond from time to time, will be updating the Firearms community online through this site. The legal team welcomes anyone with honest and serious objections to the case to come forward and state these objections for an honest discussion. This will serve a very useful purpose in perparing for objections in court.

Now, aside from the attacks on certain message boards, there have been interesting objections to the team's reading of the Haynes decision. This is a very good objection to raise, as we can all be sure that the NYS Atty General's Office will be sure to do the same in their reply papers. The objection attempts to distinguish Haynes's situation from the current SAFE Act by pointing out that Miles Haynes was charged with failing to register the firearm, whereas under the SAFE Act, failing to register an assault weapon with the State pursuant to PL 400.00 will be charged with unlawful possession and not failure to register. On its face, this objection would appear to have some merit (in fact, that was the team's first impression when reading Haynes). A deeper look into the issue reveals that there is no substantive difference in being charged with unlawful possession of an assault weapon under the SAFE Act and being charged with failure to register in the Haynes case because the failure to register an assault weapon with the State is essence of the charge; the only thing that makes an "assault rifle", currently lawfully possessed by its owner, and an unlawfully possessed assault weapon is that owner's failure to register the firearm with the State police. In other words, charging someone with unlawful possession of an unregistered assault weapon pursuant to the NY SAFE Act is the functional equivalent of charging that person with failure to register that weapon. Any thoughts, criticism, feedback - all greatly appreciated.

February 5, 2013, 05:06 PM	#63
Maxb49 Senior Member Join Date: March 8, 2007 Location: Jamestown, New York Posts: 256	Thanks Brian. The law office, and Mr. Tresmond from time to time, will be updating the Firearms community online through this site. The legal team welcomes anyone with honest and serious objections to the case to come forward and state these objections for an honest discussion. This will serve a very useful purpose in perparing for objections in court. Now, aside from the attacks on certain message boards, there have been interesting objections to the team's reading of the Haynes decision. This is a very good objection to raise, as we can all be sure that the NYS Atty General's Office will be sure to do the same in their reply papers. The objection attempts to distinguish Haynes's situation from the current SAFE Act by pointing out that Miles Haynes was charged with failing to register the firearm, whereas under the SAFE Act, failing to register an assault weapon with the State pursuant to PL 400.00 will be charged with unlawful possession and not failure to register. On its face, this objection would appear to have some merit (in fact, that was the team's first impression when reading Haynes). A deeper look into the issue reveals that there is no substantive difference in being charged with unlawful possession of an assault weapon under the SAFE Act and being charged with failure to register in the Haynes case because the failure to register an assault weapon with the State is essence of the charge; the only thing that makes an "assault rifle", currently lawfully possessed by its owner, and an unlawfully possessed assault weapon is that owner's failure to register the firearm with the State police. In other words, charging someone with unlawful possession of an unregistered assault weapon pursuant to the NY SAFE Act is the functional equivalent of charging that person with failure to register that weapon. Any thoughts, criticism, feedback - all greatly appreciated.