|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
February 6, 2013, 08:45 PM | #76 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
Perhaps the SAFE act has vulnerabilities in the area of vague and ambiguous.
|
February 6, 2013, 08:50 PM | #77 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: March 8, 2007
Location: Jamestown, New York
Posts: 256
|
Great! Everyone here has raised some very important concerns!
Brian writes, Quote:
For what it's worth, in my opinion it's also a good thing to look at the lawsuit in terms of damage mitigation. This bill isn't your typical gun control bill. This bill is a draconian attempt to ban, eradicate, and criminalize vast numbers of common, average firearms. Having any part of this bill thrown out is going to increase the liberty of New Yorkers. MWalsh writes: Quote:
Here's the rub: If a convicted felon in, say, Canajoharie illegally owns an AR-15, the State cannot compel him to register his AR-15 because doing so would force him to admit to criminal possession of a firearm. He's protected by the Fifth Amendment. So, Problem No. 1: The registry is unenforceable. After the date by which people are supposed to register, if they do not register, they're in illegal possession of a firearm, and thus cannot be compelled to register. . . Problem No. 2: According to the State, law abiding citizens must register their weapons with the NYS Police. In doing so, they have to circumscribe their liberty and privacy by registering their private information with the State government. The law, in it's totality, offers protection to felons and no protection to law abiding citizens. I'm sure most people aren't comfortable with felons receiving more protection than law abiding citizens. Quote:
|
|||
February 6, 2013, 09:28 PM | #78 | |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
Quote:
Am I missing something here? Why wouldn't New York just immediately modify the law the same way the NFA was modified in order to maintain the registry? |
|
February 7, 2013, 01:49 AM | #79 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 24, 2011
Posts: 730
|
May I interject some (ir?)revant information.
Canada passed a long gun registration in 1996? anyway, very few people registed their long guns. the deadline was extended, and very few registered their weapons,,,and extended etc..until Harper came along and campaigned to eliminate the long gun registration that was supposed to of cost $30 million, and had already cost $3 billion It was estimated that only 20% or so of the long guns in Canada had been ever registered, and no registered gun had been involved in a crime. Kind of like the Cobis program in NY eh? Harper was elected, the long gun registration was repealed...end of story. |
February 7, 2013, 08:01 PM | #80 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 8, 2007
Location: Jamestown, New York
Posts: 256
|
Update
The New York State Attorney General has contacted Mr. Tresmond requesting an adjournment until the end of April. This is (tentative) good news. |
February 7, 2013, 08:04 PM | #81 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
For us laymen, why is this good news?
For all I know, it could just be a delaying tactic. What about the suggested adjournment strikes you as being promising? |
February 7, 2013, 09:11 PM | #82 | ||
Member
Join Date: March 20, 2009
Posts: 39
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
February 7, 2013, 09:37 PM | #83 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 8, 2007
Location: Jamestown, New York
Posts: 256
|
MLeake,
It is certainly no guarantee of victory. However, this can be interpreted, tentatively, as good news since the State would not use a delaying tactic if there was a simple procedural basis on which the case could be thrown out. For example, if all of the necessary parties were not named, or the manner of service specified was improper, the NYSAG would not hesitate to dispose of this case instead of wasting valuable time and resources preparing a reply. Obviously, the arguments set forth in the complaint were meritorious and difficult enough that the AG didn't feel this would be a slam dunk if they went to bat too soon. |
February 8, 2013, 12:21 AM | #84 | |
Junior Member
Join Date: February 5, 2013
Location: Western NY
Posts: 8
|
Quote:
|
|
February 8, 2013, 06:45 AM | #85 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 8, 2007
Location: Jamestown, New York
Posts: 256
|
I can ask today.
|
February 8, 2013, 07:15 AM | #86 |
Member
Join Date: March 20, 2009
Posts: 39
|
Let me tell you Max if your team manages to get that done at least I am sure many detractors you have on whatever forum is full of that negativity will be inclined to be quiet.
|
February 8, 2013, 10:07 AM | #87 |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,434
|
So the AG wants more time to get HIS ducks in line. I don't see that as good news. I do agree that it may indicate he acknowledges the suit has merit, but if there's even a remote chance that Tresmond might agree to this, I fail to see how any good can come of it. Seems to me the AG should be asking the court for more time -- which would be admitting for the record that he's not prepared to defend the law that the State enacted. Asking the opposing attorney to agree to a delay is like handing the captive missionary a Zippo and asking him to light the fire under the pot the cannibals are going to cook him in.
|
February 8, 2013, 10:33 AM | #88 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
I agree that if Tresmond has to approve the delay I see no advantage to doing so.
Why give your enemies time to arm themselves? |
February 8, 2013, 10:45 AM | #89 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 8, 2007
Location: Jamestown, New York
Posts: 256
|
He doesn't have much of a choice. The judge is going to approve the adjournment anyways; 99% of adjournment requests by any party are granted. So if he digs his heels in, it won't amount to anything other than trouble from everyone. However, they can't get an adjournment without notifying opposing counsel. At the very least, they didn't think they could dismiss the case out of hand, because you can be sure they would have done so if possible.
|
February 8, 2013, 12:08 PM | #90 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
I figured as much. If the opposition had to approve I don't see them doing so very often.
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley |
February 8, 2013, 05:29 PM | #91 |
Junior Member
Join Date: February 5, 2013
Location: Western NY
Posts: 8
|
Can we get this thread "Stickied"?
|
February 8, 2013, 08:44 PM | #92 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Quote:
With all the other cases we are watching, and some of them are every bit as important, nationally, as is this case, I would be doing a diservice to those in Illinois, Maryland, California, Washinton State and Colorado - just to name a few. I understand how important this is to New Yorkers. I just can't discriminate against the other States and what their cases might mean. |
|
February 8, 2013, 09:43 PM | #93 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
Whats the WA state case?!
|
February 9, 2013, 07:42 AM | #94 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
WA and CO - Peterson.
|
February 9, 2013, 01:15 PM | #95 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
I search for Peter in the list of current 2A cases and find four non related Peter instances, searching for WA gets inundated with results for "was". Is the case not in the current 2A cases thread?
|
February 11, 2013, 10:00 PM | #96 |
Member
Join Date: November 30, 2006
Location: Kent, Washington
Posts: 21
|
Jim current WA bills are HB-1588 Universal Background checks and HB-1612 Registration of firearms offenders. Currently are in Judiciary Committee and moving.
|
February 12, 2013, 01:06 AM | #97 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
Those are bills not cases... they mentioned 2A cases.
|
February 12, 2013, 09:12 AM | #98 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 8, 2007
Location: Jamestown, New York
Posts: 256
|
Big news coming within the next few days. I've got to get to work.
|
February 12, 2013, 09:16 AM | #99 |
Junior Member
Join Date: February 11, 2013
Posts: 1
|
max i sent you a pm.
Last edited by unclecracker; February 12, 2013 at 09:22 AM. |
February 12, 2013, 04:25 PM | #100 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Max? You know I'm following you here and at NY Firearms?
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|