|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
March 3, 2013, 01:56 PM | #1 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
Another order to show cause in New York?
Is this another case, anybody know what's going on here?
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...wsuit/1957931/ Quote:
|
|
March 3, 2013, 02:05 PM | #2 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Yes, this is seperate case, not in any way related to what James Tresmond is doing or what the NRA/NYSRPA may do.
As I don't have the case citations, the only NYS case in The List, is the Dywinski case. |
March 4, 2013, 12:02 AM | #3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 24, 2011
Posts: 730
|
I have heard that Shultz is not a lawyer, but has done this type of stuff before, and succeeded.
|
March 4, 2013, 11:53 AM | #4 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 8, 2007
Location: Jamestown, New York
Posts: 256
|
Quote:
|
|
March 4, 2013, 12:23 PM | #5 | |
Member
Join Date: February 27, 2013
Posts: 32
|
Quote:
__________________
Lancelot Link Secret Chimp at your service |
|
March 6, 2013, 08:13 PM | #6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 4, 2010
Location: New York
Posts: 152
|
Another thing that doesn't make sense, is that My county (Suffolk) on Long Island just had a ten year low in crime. NYC just had a banner year for lowest murders in one year. Up state NY just had a 30 year low for crime. Everyone knows that more gun laws equals more crime. I will hold Coumo responsible if this SAFE Act causes the crime rate to turn around & start upward again.
|
March 6, 2013, 08:21 PM | #7 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
Quote:
|
|
March 6, 2013, 09:24 PM | #8 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 4, 2010
Location: New York
Posts: 152
|
Governor Andrew Coumo is just as arrogant as his father Mario Coumo was. He acts like he's royalty with the support of NYC behind him. Mayor Bloomberg has more money than God. It's an up hill battle. I'm not the type to cut & run. I'll fight this thing as long as I can.
|
March 6, 2013, 10:45 PM | #9 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 8, 2007
Location: Jamestown, New York
Posts: 256
|
Quote:
|
|
March 6, 2013, 11:59 PM | #10 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
Quote:
That said, let's stick to the legal aspects and steer clear of general New York politics.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
March 7, 2013, 03:11 PM | #11 |
Member
Join Date: March 20, 2009
Posts: 39
|
Has any lawsuit challenging New York's message of necessity ever been successful?
Although the reasoning behind Cuomo's message is bogus, and demonstrably incorrect (some of it is factually incompatible with the law, clearly), what is the precedent here? It seems most of the legislators were ok with the MON. I just wonder in truth what bite this has. I question whether the March 11--being so soon--was just to get this thing shut down and out of the way. |
March 11, 2013, 08:35 AM | #12 |
Member
Join Date: March 20, 2009
Posts: 39
|
Well, today is the day. Based on what I've read I do not expect the court to act against the new law in this matter. Message of necessity historically has a very wide berth and whatever Cuomo threw together for this is likely to be sufficient for the law.
|
March 12, 2013, 11:53 AM | #13 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 15, 2011
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 317
|
Any of you NYers know if anything happened yesterday?
Wasn't there a deadline to show cause? Inquiring minds... |
March 12, 2013, 12:23 PM | #14 |
Member
Join Date: March 20, 2009
Posts: 39
|
I think they moved it ahead a day. Based on what I've read I say there is no way that the state will move in Schultz' favor. His primary argument is weak and its support is without precedent.
The real court case, argued by an actual attorney, is Tresmond's and April 29 is the date to watch out for on that one. |
March 12, 2013, 01:47 PM | #15 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
As I understand it, a response to the States reply is due today (Mar. 12) and that the court has ordered oral argument tomorrow (Mar. 13).
The States Opposition to the injunction is here: Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Preliminary Injunctive Relief |
March 12, 2013, 02:53 PM | #16 |
Member
Join Date: March 17, 2012
Posts: 32
|
Al, NY could have just saved us the trouble of reading that drivel and just drawn the SAFE act bill dancing on the blood of Sandy Hook.
Basic summation: because of statistical anomalies within firearms overall, the state can do whatever it wants. |
March 12, 2013, 08:41 PM | #17 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 16, 2009
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 999
|
hate to think that the right to have a 20oz soft drink is more constitutional in a courts eyes than the 2nd amend.
|
March 13, 2013, 11:34 AM | #18 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
There is an inalienable right to keep and bear a soda arsenal. No one needs assault pop. But they have a right to it.
|
March 13, 2013, 02:08 PM | #19 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 15, 2011
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 317
|
I don't know if this is the corresponding case, but:
http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.s..._safe_act.html |
March 13, 2013, 02:18 PM | #20 | |
Member
Join Date: March 20, 2009
Posts: 39
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|