|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
February 25, 2013, 06:27 PM | #151 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
Will a lay-man think so? I didn't really get why that was big.
|
February 25, 2013, 06:57 PM | #152 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 8, 2007
Location: Jamestown, New York
Posts: 256
|
Yes, certainly everyone on all sides of the issue will consider this a landmark moment, attorney and non attorney alike.
That's all I can say for now. |
February 25, 2013, 07:30 PM | #153 | ||
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,821
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
||
February 25, 2013, 08:20 PM | #154 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
Well Spats, since Max is busy... what was so big about the Jury Trial thing? Other than it took the decision mostly out of the judge's hands giving them a better shot at victory?
|
February 25, 2013, 08:47 PM | #155 |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,821
|
JimDandy, the best I'll be able to give you on this one is a hunch. In reading my hunch, please bear in mind that I'm not licensed in NY, and have never practiced there. Accordingly, my best hunch will just be based on general principles of legal practice.
With that said, there are two kinds of "matters to be found" by a court. There are "matters of law," and "matters of fact." Matters of law -- "That which is determined or ascertained through the use of statutes, rules, court decisions, and interpretations of legal principles." Source: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedicti.../Matter+of+law Matters of fact -- "That which is to be determined by the senses or by the testimony of witnesses who describe what they have perceived through the senses of sight, smell, touch, taste, and hearing." Source: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedicti...Matter+of+fact Ordinarily, these cases go to federal court, rather than state, and I would expect most of them to be tried to a bench. The reason for that is that the constitutionality of a law is a matter of law, not a matter of fact. In a bench trial, the judge is the finder of fact, as well as the finder of law. When the challenge is simply to the constitutionality of a statute, it's likely that many of the facts (such as "Plaintiff desires to carry a handgun for self-defense") will be undisputed. In a jury trial, the jury becomes the finder of fact, and the judge is the finder of law. The jury decides whether "the plaintiff actually desires to carry a handgun for self-defense," for example. The judge finds the law and instructs the jury on same. So, that's the long-winded way of saying: Other than it took [certain parts of] the decision mostly out of the judge's hands giving them a better shot at victory, nothing. Edited to add: But that's pretty big.
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. Last edited by Spats McGee; February 25, 2013 at 08:58 PM. |
February 25, 2013, 09:13 PM | #156 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 8, 2007
Location: Jamestown, New York
Posts: 256
|
From my father:
Article 78 cases are rarely, if ever, tried by a jury, but they are available when the facts are in dispute. The Petitioners argue that certain facts on which this case hinges are in dispute, and this proceeding is going to do something that hasn't been done before in NY - argue a 78 Firearms case on Constitutional grounds in front of a jury. This case brings nationwide attention to a little known way of handling a case called Article 78 in New York. It's not your typical compliant. |
February 25, 2013, 10:00 PM | #157 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 8, 2007
Location: Jamestown, New York
Posts: 256
|
For tonight
Here's a chance for you to meet Mr. Dywinski and Mr. Lefkowitz, the two fine young men who are the Petitioners in this matter.
http://www.wivb.com/dpp/news/new_yor...er-ny-safe-act |
February 25, 2013, 11:01 PM | #158 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
JimDandy, I've been "brushing up" on NY civil law, as best a layman on the Interwebs can, and I agree with Max. The way in which this case was filed and a jury trial is requested, is really big news. To those that don't have a clue about NY civil procedure (including most of the guys living in NYS), this "Big News" wasn't very big at all.
I mean, come on! Jury trials happen every day, yes? Well, not in this case. First, it being an Article 78 case means that it is being tried before a Justice of the NY Court of Appeals, their version of a State Supreme Court. Second, an adverse ruling would be appealed for reconsideration directly to the Full Court. My understanding is that unless the Justice at trial made a grievous error, reconsideration is denied (most cases). Next stop would be a petition of cert to the SCOTUS. That is a Big Deal. (I'm sure that Max will correct me, if and where I'm wrong here) |
February 25, 2013, 11:10 PM | #159 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,460
|
Quote:
This caused all measure of consternation. They ultimately hauled in a judge they must have found stuffed in a broom closet upstairs, and she proceeded to ask me that same question. When I gave her the same answer, she lectured me on my inadequate understanding of how the court system works, and told me to go home and do some homework. So I went home and looked up Georgia v. Brailsford, 3 U.S. 1 (1794), in which case Chief Justice John Jay stated that, "The jury has the right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy." I wrote to her honor with this citation (which has never been reversed by the SCOTUS), and she has never acknowledged my letter. |
|
February 26, 2013, 09:47 AM | #160 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 1, 2011
Location: Near St. Louis, Missouri
Posts: 864
|
Isn't this similar to Jury Nullification? Jury Nullification has been an important element in achieving some measure of justice in the face of unjust laws ? In the years leading up to the Civil War, people who were charged with participation in the underground railroad were often acquitted at trial, even when the facts clearly pointed towards guilt. Northern white juries felt the law itself to be unjust. In general, most judges hate the concept of Jury Nullification, but hey, TFB. An acquittal is pretty much a done deal, and a jury has the final say.
|
February 26, 2013, 10:06 AM | #161 | ||
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,821
|
Yes, what Aquila Blanca points to is jury nullification: the power of the jury to nullify a law. From the federal Model Jury Instructions, 2001 version (the only copy that I could get to quickly):
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
||
February 26, 2013, 11:17 AM | #162 | |
Member
Join Date: March 20, 2009
Posts: 39
|
Quote:
The law was built to serve justice, but does not always do so. In times where the two are not compatible, a thinking person of initiative must discard the incorrect law and serve justice instead (at least their version of it, as it is often subjective). I expect such views for a potential juror may invalidate their selection. |
|
February 26, 2013, 04:24 PM | #163 |
Member
Join Date: December 22, 2009
Posts: 61
|
I am very disappointed that Mr. Tresmond is not challenging the provisions requiring registration of ammo dealers, background checks for ammo sales and outlawing mail-order ammo sales. Even if we return to pre-1/13/2013 situation as far as guns go, Cuomo will make it impossible to feed those guns. We will still end up with a de-facto ban. Mr. Tresmond, please address this problem as well.
|
February 26, 2013, 06:16 PM | #164 | |
Member
Join Date: August 11, 2009
Location: A Calguns Interloper
Posts: 39
|
A poster over at NYFirearms.com says that the announcement is postponed until tomorrow. See post 137
http://www.nyfirearms.com/forums/law...tml#post419292 Quote:
|
|
February 26, 2013, 07:46 PM | #165 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 17, 2007
Location: Western NY
Posts: 925
|
Fingers crossed for good news
__________________
See Ya! |
February 27, 2013, 01:52 PM | #166 |
Member
Join Date: August 7, 2010
Location: Western NY
Posts: 36
|
I'll let Max provide details but I've been in direct contact with him on these SAFE Act cases and have been relaying leaks (directly from Max who has been in the Court room) within another pro-firearms forum which I won't post here in fear that I might violate forum rules.
As of today, one of the Tresmond Cases (can't get into case details, that is for Max to do) had a favorable ruling come through from a NY State Supreme Court Justice that has been handling the litigation of one of the Tresmond's anti-SAFE cases. The Supreme Court Justice has signed an order for Respondents to appear before the court on April 29th and provide good cause and reasons why the State should not be enjoined from enforcing any provision of the assault weapons ban. This is not the instant gratification NY gun owners are looking for, but the implications of an injunction on the SAFE Act are huge. The injunction is likely to rewind NYS back to how things were in terms of gun laws on Jan. 14th, 2013, before the SAFE Act was passed and signed. You should be able to answer your own questions about assault weapons bans, etc. based on that statement. An injunction is far-reaching and essentially puts the entire SAFE Act on hold while the Court battles are in process (which can take a year or longer). Prelim. Injunctions are only granted when the higher Courts rule that a case has merits among other things. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preliminary_injunction I'm just relaying news here, I spoke with Max on the phone just before 1pm today. Not sure how much info will get into the press at this point but certainly keep an eye out... Last edited by ChrisWNY; February 27, 2013 at 02:06 PM. |
February 27, 2013, 04:25 PM | #167 |
Member
Join Date: January 7, 2013
Posts: 74
|
Good news indeed. Great work from these people.
Any response from Cuomo? |
February 27, 2013, 06:01 PM | #168 |
Junior Member
Join Date: February 2, 2013
Posts: 4
|
I was following Maxb49 thread on NYFirearms.com and apparently the site just crashed! Before that it was all Great News!
|
February 27, 2013, 06:27 PM | #169 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 18, 2010
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 237
|
"I was following Maxb49 thread on NYFirearms.com and apparently the site just crashed! Before that it was all Great News!"
A liberal conspiracy no doubt!! OK, maybe people celebrating. Or maybe just coincidence.
__________________
"The saving of our world from pending doom will come, not through the complacent adjustment of the conforming majority, but through the creative maladjustment of a nonconforming minority.” - Martin Luther King, Jr. NRA Endowment Member |
February 27, 2013, 06:43 PM | #170 |
Junior Member
Join Date: February 2, 2013
Posts: 4
|
Most likely too many people hitting the site. Anyone else experiencing the same thing?
|
February 27, 2013, 07:04 PM | #171 |
Member
Join Date: August 15, 2007
Location: Surprise, AZ
Posts: 42
|
Yes, I also cannot get in.
|
February 27, 2013, 07:05 PM | #172 |
Member
Join Date: August 7, 2010
Location: Western NY
Posts: 36
|
Yeah they're down right now, probably from the increase in traffic. Either that or Cuomo hired some ex-union workers to DDoS it...
|
February 27, 2013, 08:33 PM | #173 |
Junior Member
Join Date: February 2, 2013
Posts: 4
|
This came in an email from SCOPE.
http://audio.wben.com/a/71558139/bau...d-dipietro.htm http://www.wktv.com/news/local/State...193664911.html |
February 27, 2013, 08:36 PM | #174 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 8, 2007
Location: Jamestown, New York
Posts: 256
|
I can't believe we crashed NYFirearms.
We were taking a break, went out to dinner, and I tried pulling the website up on my phone. Said the page couldn't load. I was puzzled. Then I thought "Nah, couldn't be..." Apparently, it is. Onward! |
February 27, 2013, 09:36 PM | #175 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 17, 2007
Location: Western NY
Posts: 925
|
Come on Max, your only official update tonight is to tell us that NY firearms crashed? We want the scoop from the horses mouth.......
__________________
See Ya! |
|
|