The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old February 27, 2013, 09:45 PM   #176
stepupto
Junior Member
 
Join Date: February 2, 2013
Posts: 4
First I would like to thank you and your father and everyone else involved. Second can you give us short and detailed report of what happened today? And if the next court date is April 29th how does that effect the laws that are to go into effect on the 15th?
stepupto is offline  
Old February 27, 2013, 09:56 PM   #177
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,322
Wonderful News! An order to show cause, is generally only given when the Judge thinks that the case will win on its merits.

Just sorry that NY Firearms is down.
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old February 27, 2013, 10:07 PM   #178
ChrisWNY
Member
 
Join Date: August 7, 2010
Location: Western NY
Posts: 36
NYF is back up btw.
ChrisWNY is offline  
Old February 27, 2013, 10:38 PM   #179
Southwest Chuck
Member
 
Join Date: August 11, 2009
Location: A Calguns Interloper
Posts: 39
Yup. Looks like the NY site is back up so the link(s) should work now. Max has been posting over there
http://www.nyfirearms.com/forums/law...-thread-7.html
Southwest Chuck is offline  
Old February 27, 2013, 10:43 PM   #180
Maxb49
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 8, 2007
Location: Jamestown, New York
Posts: 256
Hey guys, I'm back!

Sorry about that. This has been one of the craziest, busiest night I've ever seen. Are Spats and Al around?
Maxb49 is offline  
Old February 27, 2013, 10:48 PM   #181
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,202
For the moment. I'll turn into a pumpkin soon, though.
__________________
A gunfight is not the time to learn new skills.

If you ever have a real need for more than a couple of magazines, your problem is not a shortage of magazines. It's a shortage of people on your side of the argument. -- Art Eatman
Spats McGee is offline  
Old February 27, 2013, 10:50 PM   #182
Maxb49
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 8, 2007
Location: Jamestown, New York
Posts: 256
Spats, sending you a pm.
Maxb49 is offline  
Old February 27, 2013, 10:51 PM   #183
2ndsupporter
Junior Member
 
Join Date: February 6, 2013
Posts: 12
Max ...Please

Stop referring to semi auto sporting rifles as assault weapons. This will not help the cause.

Assault weapons have a legal definition.

Going forward your team will have much press time and many interviews. MODERN SPORTING RIFLES. So important that we use this terminology so that people start to understand over time that we are not fighting for the right to own fully auto macine guns. This is unfortunately the rap we have gotten because of to much negative and uneducated press.

It will help your cause and ours. Thank you for all the hard work the team is putting forth to guarantee we can continue to exercise our pre-existing right to self protection. When a donation cause is established, you can count me in.
2ndsupporter is offline  
Old February 27, 2013, 11:42 PM   #184
Southwest Chuck
Member
 
Join Date: August 11, 2009
Location: A Calguns Interloper
Posts: 39
Quote:
Posted by 2ndsupporter:Assault weapons have a legal definition.

The Truth About Assault Weapons

Assault weapon has no basic set of characteristic criteria. It changes definition depending on how the news outlet or politician wants to define as an "assault weapon" at any given time

So I believe you're Wrong. That's a made up term for any firearm that looks scarey.
There is however an Assault Rife with a select fire capability.
Quote:
An assault rifle is a selective fire (selective between automatic, semi-automatic, and burst fire) rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine.[1] Assault rifles are the standard service rifles in most modern armies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_Rifle

At the same link, you will also find this.
Quote:
Assault rifles vs. Assault weapons

In the United States "assault weapons" are usually defined in legislation as semi-automatic firearms that have certain features generally associated with military firearms, including assault rifles. Some definitions in "assault weapon" legislation under consideration (in 2013) are much broader to the point of including the majority of firearms, e.g. to include all semi-automatic firearms or all firearms with detachable magazines.
If I'm in error, please post the relevant code or law to back up your statement.

Last edited by Southwest Chuck; February 28, 2013 at 01:36 AM.
Southwest Chuck is offline  
Old February 28, 2013, 07:22 AM   #185
Willie Sutton
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 26, 2012
Posts: 1,066
^^^^

Gents: We should control the language and not let the other side define it.

To the point, we should categorically refuse to use the word "assault" in anything we say or write, and should categorically use other terms.



Let's all practice now: Repeat after me:


I shoot a Modern Sporting Rifle and a Semi-Automatic Handgun, which both accept a Factory Provided Standard Capacity Magazine. They are the same models used by my local Police Department for Personal Defence, and they are also suitable for many sporting purposes.


We fall into a trap when we let the other side define the terms we use.


Back on track, this is a huge win. Well done to all involved.


Willie


.
Willie Sutton is offline  
Old February 28, 2013, 07:34 AM   #186
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,202
We should debate the ins and outs of the language war in its own thread, and avoid derailing this one. (Hint!)
__________________
A gunfight is not the time to learn new skills.

If you ever have a real need for more than a couple of magazines, your problem is not a shortage of magazines. It's a shortage of people on your side of the argument. -- Art Eatman
Spats McGee is offline  
Old February 28, 2013, 12:06 PM   #187
MercyfulFate
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 14, 2013
Posts: 138
From what I've read, this challenge will likely fail. For one it doesn't include a TRO (Temporary Restraining Order) to really stop the law from taking effect. It also is only at the lowest level court, and according to other lawyers it's being filed incorrectly.

Sounds like it's going to fail. I hope not but it doesn't look good.
__________________
Massachusetts Native (Tough to be a gun owner!)

Owner of: S&W Model 10-5, Beretta 92fs and a Mossberg Maverick 88 "Security" Shotgun
MercyfulFate is offline  
Old February 28, 2013, 12:13 PM   #188
MWalsh
Member
 
Join Date: March 20, 2009
Posts: 31
Quote:
From what I've read, this challenge will likely fail. For one it doesn't include a TRO (Temporary Restraining Order) to really stop the law from taking effect. It also is only at the lowest level court, and according to other lawyers it's being filed incorrectly.

Sounds like it's going to fail. I hope not but it doesn't look good.
Which challenge? Is the judge not showing some degree of confidence in the case's merits to specify a date by which the state need defend itself lest an injunction apply?
MWalsh is offline  
Old February 28, 2013, 12:18 PM   #189
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,479
I was under the impression the case with the Injunction hearing on the 29th was Holtz, not this one?
JimDandy is offline  
Old February 28, 2013, 12:19 PM   #190
ChrisWNY
Member
 
Join Date: August 7, 2010
Location: Western NY
Posts: 36
Quote:
From what I've read, this challenge will likely fail. For one it doesn't include a TRO (Temporary Restraining Order) to really stop the law from taking effect. It also is only at the lowest level court, and according to other lawyers it's being filed incorrectly.

Sounds like it's going to fail. I hope not but it doesn't look good.
Max has already addressed this concern in the Holtz v. State of New York thread...

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=518010

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maxb49
As a matter of law, temporary restraining orders cannot be granted against a State, body, or officer from carrying out Statutory law. You need a full injunction. This is the way it was in the CPLR, every judge's hands are tied regarding TROs. Nevertheless, the team applied for a TRO. The judge simply cannot grant the request. This isn't simply a lawsuit. The way the order is written places the burden on the State to demonstrate the Constitutionality of the law. That's a major shift from the Petitioner having to prove that the law is unconstitutional. Remember, the judge was not required to sign the order. Further, Mr. Holtz now has a court order. That's a big deal.
ChrisWNY is offline  
Old February 28, 2013, 12:29 PM   #191
MercyfulFate
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 14, 2013
Posts: 138
I'm just going based on what I've read, and have seen no Holtz thread before this. I'm no law student unfortunately.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/201...ct-injunction/

"Armchair Command'oh says:
February 27, 2013 at 22:42

Sorry to break it to you, but this is meaningless. An order to show cause is standard fair in New York. Although it sounds like the burden is on the State, it is not. The language is just legalize. Also, an order to show cause is always issued. A victory at this point would have been a TRO pending a hearing on the motion for a preliminary injunction. The lack of a TRO is a bad sign.

Also, not to be an elitist ass, but top notch constitutional lawyers are not based out of Buffallo. These types of cases need to be meticulously planned and litigated. A bad argument that leads to bad precedent must be avoided at all costs.

Attorneys looking to make a name for themselves need to back off and let the 2nd Amendment Foundation take the reigns. They have already shown that they know how to get the job done."

There's more in the comments underneath it too.
__________________
Massachusetts Native (Tough to be a gun owner!)

Owner of: S&W Model 10-5, Beretta 92fs and a Mossberg Maverick 88 "Security" Shotgun
MercyfulFate is offline  
Old February 28, 2013, 12:40 PM   #192
JRH6856
Member
 
Join Date: February 27, 2013
Location: DFW area
Posts: 94
Quote:
I'm just going based on what I've read, and have seen no Holtz thread before this. I'm no law student unfortunately.
Based on what I've read, the guy you quoted isn't much of a student of law, either.
__________________
NRA Life Member
All calibers equalize, some calibers equalize more than others.
JRH6856 is offline  
Old February 28, 2013, 12:42 PM   #193
MWalsh
Member
 
Join Date: March 20, 2009
Posts: 31
MercifulState, I like many others have no practical legal knowledge (of the intricacies of cases) so have to go on what others say.

Whether armchair commando is right or not, I still won't count any chickens before they hatch. A lot of people are speaking as if this injunction is a done deal and I am sure they are getting ahead of themselves. It's not done until it is; you have no contract until it's signed; there's no reward for almost, ad infinitum.
Quote:
Based on what I've read, the guy you quoted isn't much of a student of law, either.
If you read other comments by armchair in that link he is a lawyer.
MWalsh is offline  
Old February 28, 2013, 12:42 PM   #194
MercyfulFate
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 14, 2013
Posts: 138
That may be, but everything I see just seems to be assumptions no matter where I look.

Yes, I agree. Opinions are flying every which way from "This is great!" to "This means nothing!" and as I'm not a student of law, I've seen nothing convincing yet either.
__________________
Massachusetts Native (Tough to be a gun owner!)

Owner of: S&W Model 10-5, Beretta 92fs and a Mossberg Maverick 88 "Security" Shotgun
MercyfulFate is offline  
Old February 28, 2013, 12:46 PM   #195
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,479
By definition, everything is some level of an assumption until the final decision is read and entered. Now isn't the time to get our collective shorts in a bunch over maybes and couldbes when the first trial hasn't even started? finished? yet.
JimDandy is offline  
Old February 28, 2013, 12:47 PM   #196
MercyfulFate
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 14, 2013
Posts: 138
That's true, but people who claim to know the law don't even agree with each other on what this even means. That's the problem.
__________________
Massachusetts Native (Tough to be a gun owner!)

Owner of: S&W Model 10-5, Beretta 92fs and a Mossberg Maverick 88 "Security" Shotgun
MercyfulFate is offline  
Old February 28, 2013, 12:49 PM   #197
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,479
How many of them claim to know New York State Law? And the politics of the presiding judge?
JimDandy is offline  
Old February 28, 2013, 12:50 PM   #198
MercyfulFate
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 14, 2013
Posts: 138
The guy I quoted claims he knows it, but this is the internet.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/201...ct-injunction/

"The article says the attorney was based out of Buffalo. That’s where I got that from.

The problem here is that neither the NY Court of Appeals (highest state court) nor the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals (the federal appellate court) will ever overturn the NY Safe Act on 2nd Amendment grounds. We have absolutely zero chance. Moreover, the US Supreme Court typically doesn’t agree to review a case unless there is a split in the circuits. This means that a 2nd Amendment challenge will most likely result in bad precedent.

The better bet is probably to challenge the law for violating the three-day waiting period required before a vote is held on legislation. That has a much better chance of success. If that works, we win. If it doesn’t work, then we could still bring a new case on 2A grounds and hope the U.S. Supreme Court agrees to review. This approach is similar to how that CA ammo law was challenged and overturned. It wasn’t on 2A grounds, but on a state procedural technicality."

Can we get someone to say whether this whole thing even means something or if it doesn't? That would help.
__________________
Massachusetts Native (Tough to be a gun owner!)

Owner of: S&W Model 10-5, Beretta 92fs and a Mossberg Maverick 88 "Security" Shotgun
MercyfulFate is offline  
Old February 28, 2013, 12:58 PM   #199
MercyfulFate
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 14, 2013
Posts: 138
http://www.northeastshooters.com/vbu...utional-4.html

"Before anyone spends too much on champagne, consider a couple of things:

1) I have not been successful in obtaining a copy of anything issued by the NY Sup. Ct. in this case, but my understand is that what was issued is a "Show Cause" order. While it has been a while since I practiced in the NY state courts, my recollection is that a "Show Cause" order is essentially a hearing scheduling notice, signifying nothing about the merits or the Court's inclination for a ruling. Nor do I believe that issuance of a "Show Cause" order has any effect on the burdens of production and persuasion.

2) Again from a distance, my understanding is that a substantial issue exists under the New York state constitution about the procedures used to enact the Cuomo laws; could this be the "constitutional" issues at stake (versus anything under the 2nd Amendment to the federal constitution)?"

http://www.uticaod.com/features/x930...moving-forward
__________________
Massachusetts Native (Tough to be a gun owner!)

Owner of: S&W Model 10-5, Beretta 92fs and a Mossberg Maverick 88 "Security" Shotgun
MercyfulFate is offline  
Old February 28, 2013, 01:10 PM   #200
LancelotLink
Member
 
Join Date: February 27, 2013
Posts: 21
I've been reading these threads and had to register to reply because there's some misunderstanding going on.

Formalities first. Hi everyone.

Here's the deal -

An order to show cause is nothing special under most circumstances. Its simply the means by which a pre-trial order can be obtained. Normally, the burden on obtaining a stay of the SAFE act lies squarely with the side the filed the motion.

The way an order to show cause works is the side that want a pre trial order submits a motion to the clerk of the court. If the format is correct, its presented to the judge for signing and the judge sets the timetable for both sides to submit all papers.

The only way a judge won't sign an order to show cause is if the format is incorrect. Its not big news.

Its about as significant as a mechanic opening a hood of a car to work on an engine. Its necessary, but its not something a mechanic would claim as monumental.

Obtaining an injunction is hard, extremely hard.

Expect the state to file its own motion to dismiss this entire case as part of its response.

After both sides submit all papers, the judge will rule on both sides request for pre-trial orders, usually within 60 days.

I don't mean to be a downer, but simply filing routine paperwork is nothing to get excited about, and calling it monumental doesn't exactly give me the warm and fuzzys.

Added: But like most aspects of the law, there are exceptions and it seems like this case falls into one. Having learned more facts, it seems there was some confusion on my end as to the context of the order to show cause.

Last edited by LancelotLink; March 1, 2013 at 12:00 AM.
LancelotLink is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:07 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.14960 seconds with 9 queries