The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old January 15, 2013, 01:43 PM   #1
Ruthless4christ
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 24, 2007
Location: CNY
Posts: 790
Class Action Lawsuit worth it?

I am seeing this Gentleman on multiple Gun Forums online. There was also some chatter on ar15.com that "ex post facto" does not apply here so being involved in this case would be a waste of time? hoping for some wiser minds to comment. Please see below.

Good afternoon,

I am an attorney in Western New York. Andrew Cuomo's proposed ban on 10 round magazine with no grandfather clause constitutes a ex post facto law and is therefore a prima facie violation of the Constitution. We need to get a class action suit together.

If this bill passes, I'd like any and all affected gun owners who want to challenge this law to contact me.

(This is not a business/advertising post)


I responded and this is what he sent back to me:


I have successfully represented clients in the past on Second Amendment issues in NYS Supreme Court. This case is pro-bono for all the gun owners of New York.

Last edited by Ruthless4christ; January 15, 2013 at 02:04 PM.
Ruthless4christ is offline  
Old January 15, 2013, 02:04 PM   #2
Ruthless4christ
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 24, 2007
Location: CNY
Posts: 790
here is another post I am seeing about the same guy.

To all New York Gun Owners! Lawyer : Jim Tresmond, Attorney in Buffalo, New York. Attorney phone is *****716.202.4301 ****

Successfully represented clients in the past on Second Amendment issues in NYS Supreme Court. This case is pro-bono for all the gun owners of New York. According to Mr. Tresmond the new ban is illegal as it is an ex-facto law taking away previously owned property and he intends to file this action in Federal Court.

We are looking for as many as possible to add to CLASS ACTION CASE:

SEND Your Name and EMAIL ADDRESS and phone number to:

psacco1@twcny.rr.com
WE ARE COLLECTING AS MANY AS POSSIBLE AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE!!!
Ruthless4christ is offline  
Old January 15, 2013, 02:19 PM   #3
sigcurious
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 25, 2011
Posts: 1,755
I don't think getting involved in the case would be a waste of time, but from my non-lawyer understanding of ex post facto laws, I don't think it would count as ex post facto.

On it's surface, it seems retroactive, but there is an allotted period of time to comply with the law and it has not automatically deemed since you possessed the magazines in the past and that is now a crime(or rather will be a crime when the amnesty period elapses) that you are automatically guilty of the crime.

Hypothetically, if they could prove that you owned a magazine over seven rounds at some point before the law were enacted, and rounded all those people up and charged them with possession because they at one time before the law was in place possessed what is now an illegal item, that would be ex post facto. However making something illegal, then charging people who get caught, going forward from the time of enactment is not retroactive.

IANAL, but that's my take on it.
sigcurious is offline  
Old January 15, 2013, 02:22 PM   #4
Ruthless4christ
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 24, 2007
Location: CNY
Posts: 790
Has anyone ever heard of this guy?
Ruthless4christ is offline  
Old January 15, 2013, 02:31 PM   #5
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,479
He's being mentioned in at least one of the other TWO posts on the NY law going on right now. And mentioned favorably.
JimDandy is offline  
Old January 15, 2013, 02:37 PM   #6
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,791
That email address is somehow associated with Dave Spaulding and/or Verdad Training, Patrick Sacco.
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old January 15, 2013, 02:38 PM   #7
Maxb49
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 8, 2007
Location: Jamestown, New York
Posts: 256
Jim is a great guy who has successfully represented clients who have had their guns seized by the state. He's a US Navy Veteran (58-62), a well respected defense attorney in Buffalo, and a great guy.
Maxb49 is offline  
Old January 15, 2013, 02:39 PM   #8
Maxb49
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 8, 2007
Location: Jamestown, New York
Posts: 256
I believe Sacco is amassing a list of supporters. Tresmond's email address is TresmondLaw@gmail.com

His office is being inundated with telephone calls from around the state, so it's no surprise that some people are having a hard time getting through. He's not challenging this ex-post facto as some think, it's part of a broader series of arguments against the law. People can criticize a particular point all they want, but unless they see the finalized petition, they aren't able to make an accurate assessment of the case. I am aware that several former Assistant District Attorneys have signed on to assist Tresmond.

We need all of the support we can get here in NY.
Maxb49 is offline  
Old January 15, 2013, 02:43 PM   #9
Ruthless4christ
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 24, 2007
Location: CNY
Posts: 790
Glad to hear some people vouching for him. i email my info, and I will be sure to take handouts for this upcoming rally in Albany, on saturday. Hopefully I see some of you all there.
Ruthless4christ is offline  
Old January 15, 2013, 02:46 PM   #10
Maxb49
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 8, 2007
Location: Jamestown, New York
Posts: 256
That's great.

Again, Mr. Tresmond wants everyone to know that although he cannot personally respond to each of the thousands of emails being sent to him, he's advocating for everyone's rights here. He's going to give his client's their day in court and ask the court to name this as a class action suit.

IMHO, it's a good strategy.
Maxb49 is offline  
Old January 15, 2013, 02:46 PM   #11
Ben Towe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 6, 2009
Location: Middle Tennessee
Posts: 1,120
I'm not sure it would fall under ex post facto either. What is may fall under is the Supreme Court's ruling on banning weapons in common use.

Using my non lawyer logic, if the NY law is overturned on the basis of ex post facto, other laws such as the closing of the machine gun register in 1986 could be trumped on that basis, because they outlawed weapons that were previously legal. That would get the grabbers screaming.
__________________
'Merica: Back to back World War Champs
Ben Towe is offline  
Old January 15, 2013, 02:52 PM   #12
Maxb49
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 8, 2007
Location: Jamestown, New York
Posts: 256
Attorney's use a number of arguments, going from their strongest to weakest.

The ex post facto argument is paralleled to several cases involving registration, but it is certainly not the only argument Mr. Tresmond has in his arsenal.
Maxb49 is offline  
Old January 15, 2013, 02:56 PM   #13
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,791
Well, I sent an email with my info and offered to help any way I can.
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old January 15, 2013, 03:11 PM   #14
Maxb49
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 8, 2007
Location: Jamestown, New York
Posts: 256
Thanks Brian. Jim's got enough Petitioners to go to court with, so he's all set on that front. Now it's time to spread the word and wait to see his completed argument which should be ready in the next few days.
Maxb49 is offline  
Old January 15, 2013, 03:27 PM   #15
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,791
Just got off the phone with Jim Tresmond....

He is requesting that folks please stop calling his office. He is grateful for the support and says that he certainly understands the concern that folks have at potentially losing their civil rights but he would very much like to spend his time working on the case rather than he and his staff answering phones calls.

He says he has enough petitioners and will be filing the suit and then requesting Class-Action status. (If I'm correctly understanding the process)
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old January 15, 2013, 03:29 PM   #16
Ruthless4christ
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 24, 2007
Location: CNY
Posts: 790
Thanks Brian, I will be sure to only post his email if I put it anywhere.
Ruthless4christ is offline  
Old January 15, 2013, 11:22 PM   #17
KyJim
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 7,717
I wish Mr. Tresmond well but don't believe the bill passed is an ex post facto law. As I understand it, the law would grandfather in ten round magazines already in a gun owner's possession but limit the owner from loading more than seven rounds in the magazine. A law violates the Ex Post Facto Clause only when it criminalizes past action. It is the future act of loading or possessing a magazine with more than ten rounds in it that is being criminalized.

The Second Amendment itself provides a better chance of success than an ex post facto claim.
__________________
Jim's Rules of Carry: 1. Any gun is better than no gun. 2. A gun that is reliable is better than a gun that is not. 3. A hole in the right place is better than a hole in the wrong place. 4. A bigger hole is a better hole.
KyJim is offline  
Old January 16, 2013, 07:43 AM   #18
Maxb49
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 8, 2007
Location: Jamestown, New York
Posts: 256
My understanding is that they are not arguing it is an ex post facto law from that perspective, but the office does not wish to disclose its finished argument to the public until tomorrow night. Of course, that is only one argument against the law, and a good lawyer uses numerous arguments, from strongest to weakest, when trying to strike down a law. Let's let Jim present his case before we start picking it apart.
Maxb49 is offline  
Old January 16, 2013, 07:53 AM   #19
Ruthless4christ
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 24, 2007
Location: CNY
Posts: 790
I signed up. I encourage any and all New Yorkers to do the same, it cant hurt any and if anything the public needs to see an overwhelming support for any and all cases against the draconian law.
Ruthless4christ is offline  
Old January 16, 2013, 07:58 AM   #20
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,589
Quote:
Originally Posted by KyJim
I wish Mr. Tresmond well but don't believe the bill passed is an ex post facto law. As I understand it, the law would grandfather in ten round magazines already in a gun owner's possession but limit the owner from loading more than seven rounds in the magazine.
Either your understanding of the law is incomplete, or mine is wrong. My understanding is that magazines holding more than 7 rounds are illegal, but there is a one-year "grace" period during which owners must either dispose of them or sell them out of state. During that one-year grace period they can be used if not loaded with more than 7 rounds.

So they're not really "grandfathered" at all.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old January 16, 2013, 09:15 AM   #21
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
That is how I understand it. Cynically, I think they only allowed the year in hopes of providing an argument against the issue of uncompensated "takings." IE, we gave you time to recoup your costs...

Note to pro-2A members: Keep this in mind should Cuomo actually throw his hat in the ring for President. We now know exactly where he stands on 2A, and we need to remember when the time comes.
MLeake is offline  
Old January 16, 2013, 09:38 AM   #22
Contrast Man
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 2, 2011
Location: Illinois
Posts: 170
Quote:
Either your understanding of the law is incomplete, or mine is wrong. My understanding is that magazines holding more than 7 rounds are illegal, but there is a one-year "grace" period during which owners must either dispose of them or sell them out of state. During that one-year grace period they can be used if not loaded with more than 7 rounds.

So they're not really "grandfathered" at all.
I'm reading through the bill right now and the way it seems to me is that;
1) All "pre-ban" magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds that were legally owned are now banned and the owners have one year to sell or dispose of them.

2) All magazines holding up to 10 rounds (that are not readily able to be modified to hold more rounds) are "grandfathered" in, however must not be loaded with more than 7 rounds at any time.

3) All magazines "obtained after the effective date of the chapter of the laws of two thousand thirteen" may not be able to hold more than 7 rounds and are not readily able to be modified to hold more rounds.

4) Exceptions to the aforementioned are tubular .22 rimfire magazines and;
a)curio and relic feeding devices manufactured no less than 50 years before the effective date that can only be used in firearms that meet the same age requirement.

Source: http://blog.timesunion.com/capitol/a...-vote-tonight/

All of the information is on page 32 of 67.
Contrast Man is offline  
Old January 28, 2013, 09:51 PM   #23
terzmo
Member
 
Join Date: December 16, 2012
Posts: 59
I e-mailed Him and offered any assistance. Tom E USAF ret.
terzmo 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 06:08 PM.


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 0.12911 seconds with 9 queries