The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old January 31, 2013, 11:11 PM   #51
Progress
Member
 
Join Date: December 19, 2012
Location: WNY
Posts: 18
That's news to me. Care to elaborate?
Progress is offline  
Old February 1, 2013, 12:40 AM   #52
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,276
Case #77. Dywinski, Richard v. State Of New York: Case #000290/2013, filed on 01-29-2013 in the Erie Civil Supreme Court of New York. James D. Tresmond, Attorney for the Plaintiff. This is a NY State lawsuit that seeks to overturn certain portions of the recently enacted NY SAFE Act.

The above was just added to the "List of Cases." This will be the primary thread to discuss this case.
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old February 3, 2013, 11:00 PM   #53
NWPilgrim
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 29, 2008
Location: Oregon
Posts: 2,112
This NY law still has not gone into effect correct? Has enforcement been postponed past the initial date of April or whatever, or are they planning to drop the hammer on gun owners immeditealy?
__________________
"The ultimate authority ... resides in the people alone. ... The advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation ... forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition."
- James Madison
NWPilgrim is offline  
Old February 5, 2013, 01:31 AM   #54
hermannr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 24, 2011
Posts: 730
Some of it goes into effect after april, some after 1 year.
hermannr is offline  
Old February 5, 2013, 01:21 PM   #55
camper4lyfe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 2, 2008
Location: Fairport, NY
Posts: 156
Some portions went into effect immediately, like being unable to buy or sell "AW's"
camper4lyfe is offline  
Old February 5, 2013, 01:45 PM   #56
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
Question re: post 50

What threats? Maxb49 alluded to threats against the legal team, but I saw no links or references to any threats made.

Did I miss something? Or did Maxb49 forget a link?
MLeake is offline  
Old February 5, 2013, 01:53 PM   #57
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 17,466
Below is the portion of the law that controls when each section goes into effect. The entire document can be found here.



S 58. This act shall take effect immediately; provided, however, that:
52 a. Sections one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten,
53 eleven, twelve, thirteen, fourteen, fifteen, sixteen, seventeen, eigh-
54 teen, nineteen, twenty, twenty-one, twenty-two, twenty-three, twenty-
55 four, twenty-five, twenty-six, twenty-six-a, twenty-seven, twenty-eight,
56 twenty-nine, thirty, thirty-one, thirty-two, thirty-three, thirty-four,
S. 2230 39 A. 2388

1 thirty-five, thirty-six, thirty-nine, forty, forty-one, forty-one-a,
2 forty-one-b, forty-two, forty-three, forty-five, forty-six, forty-six-a,
3 forty-seven, fifty-one, fifty-two, fifty-three, fifty-four, fifty-five,
4 and fifty-six of this act shall take effect on the sixtieth day after it
5 shall have become a law;
6 b. The amendments to subdivision 23 of section 265.00 of the penal law
7 made by section thirty-eight of this act shall take effect on the nine-
8 tieth day after this act shall have become a law, except that the amend-
9 ments made to paragraph (a) of subdivision 23 shall take effect imme-
10 diately;
11 c. The amendments to subdivision 1, paragraph (a) of subdivision 3,
12 and subdivisions 4, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, and 16-b of section 400.00 of the
13 penal law made by section forty-eight of this act shall take effect one
14 year after this act shall have become a law;
15 d. The amendments to subdivision 16-a of section 400.00 of the penal
16 law made by section forty-eight of this act shall take effect on the
17 ninetieth day after this act shall have become a law;
18 e. The amendments to sections 400.02 and 400.03 of the penal law made
19 by sections forty-nine and fifty of this act shall take effect one year
20 after it shall have become a law; and
21 f. The amendments to subdivision (b) of section 9.47 and sections 9.48
22 and 9.60 of the mental hygiene law made by sections twenty-one, twenty-
23 two and twenty-three of this act shall not affect the expiration and
24 repeal of such paragraph and sections and shall be deemed repealed ther-
25 ewith.
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
You do not HAVE a soul. You ARE a soul. You HAVE a body.
-----
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 February 5, 2013, 02:01 PM   #58
carguychris
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 5,271
Quote:
Originally Posted by hermannr
Some of it goes into effect after april, some after 1 year.
Quote:
Originally Posted by camper4lyfe
Some portions went into effect immediately, like being unable to buy or sell "AW's"
What was the definitive effective date for the restrictions on so-called "Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Devices" (LCAFDs)?

I'm intrigued that LCAFDs are the main focus of the lawsuit; in several NY-related threads, I've theorized that the (IMHO) very broad language used in the definition of a LCAFD could ensnare numerous firearms and accessories that are beyond the publicly-promoted scope of the law. I feel vindicated because this legal team agrees with me.
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak
carguychris is offline  
Old February 5, 2013, 02:13 PM   #59
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 17,466
IIRC, the magazine ban is three fold.

1)Magazines may not be loaded over 7 rounds, effective immediately.

2)Magazines over 10 round capacity must be sold out of state or disposed of within one year.

3)Magazines between 7 and 10 rounds can be brought into the state until April 2013 and can be kept/used after that date but no more may be brought in and they must be loaded to 7 rounds only.

Yeah, because criminals intent on shooting a room full of people will be careful not to be charged with loading too many rounds in a magazine.
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
You do not HAVE a soul. You ARE a soul. You HAVE a body.
-----
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 February 5, 2013, 04:21 PM   #60
Maxb49
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 8, 2007
Location: Jamestown, New York
Posts: 256
Carguychris:

Thank you for bringing up the LCAFD. The legal team thought that the most useful way to attack the bill would be to show that the LCAFD (not the assault weapon ban) amendments would outlaw guns, particularly the 870 - a popular firearm whose production employs over a thousand New Yorkers - that are commonly owned and protected under the Heller doctrine.

A lot of people have been calling the office asking why their shotgun is outlawed. If you read the actual text of the NY SAFE Act, any magazine that holds more than 10 rounds, or can easily be modified to hold more than 10 rounds, classifies as a LCAFD and must be surrendered/sold. First of all, every shotgun can be easily modified, by the average person, to hold more than ten rounds with a simple magazine extension tube. Secondly, most pump action shotguns can hold more than seven 1 3/4" shells, and many of them can hold 12+. If shotguns are protected, and we certainly believe they are, the SAFE Act's LCAFD law is unconstitutionally overbroad, period, end of case.

The legal team appears to have been viruently attacked on the LIFirearms message board, perhaps someone from that site would like to come over this way for a discussion.
Maxb49 is offline  
Old February 5, 2013, 04:39 PM   #61
UncleWilley
Junior Member
 
Join Date: February 5, 2013
Location: Western NY
Posts: 8
New member from wonderful Western NY, the land of the not so free.

Great to be able get updates on Tresomond's suit!!
I was in contact with him on USCarry before he filed his suit. He also spoke at the last WNY SCOPE re his suit but was cautious about what he said not knowing who was in the audience. I'm still a little confused. It seems he filed on behalf a one or more specific clients. I was under the impression he was planning a class-action suit. Only thing that matters is overturning the absurd law!!!

MAX Thanks for the updates!!
UncleWilley is offline  
Old February 5, 2013, 04:44 PM   #62
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 17,466
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maxb49
The legal team appears to have been viruently attacked on the LIFirearms message board, perhaps someone from that site would like to come over this way for a discussion.
And this will be the only warning for someone who comes here with the purpose of bashing Mr Tresmond or anyone else.... your time on The Firing Line will be short.

Civilized discussions wherein we disagree about the merits of the case, great. Coming here to attack the reputation/integrity of ANYONE without cause and proof... bye-bye.
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
You do not HAVE a soul. You ARE a soul. You HAVE a body.
-----
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 February 5, 2013, 05:06 PM   #63
Maxb49
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 8, 2007
Location: Jamestown, New York
Posts: 256
Thanks Brian. The law office, and Mr. Tresmond from time to time, will be updating the Firearms community online through this site. The legal team welcomes anyone with honest and serious objections to the case to come forward and state these objections for an honest discussion. This will serve a very useful purpose in perparing for objections in court.

Now, aside from the attacks on certain message boards, there have been interesting objections to the team's reading of the Haynes decision. This is a very good objection to raise, as we can all be sure that the NYS Atty General's Office will be sure to do the same in their reply papers. The objection attempts to distinguish Haynes's situation from the current SAFE Act by pointing out that Miles Haynes was charged with failing to register the firearm, whereas under the SAFE Act, failing to register an assault weapon with the State pursuant to PL 400.00 will be charged with unlawful possession and not failure to register. On its face, this objection would appear to have some merit (in fact, that was the team's first impression when reading Haynes). A deeper look into the issue reveals that there is no substantive difference in being charged with unlawful possession of an assault weapon under the SAFE Act and being charged with failure to register in the Haynes case because the failure to register an assault weapon with the State is essence of the charge; the only thing that makes an "assault rifle", currently lawfully possessed by its owner, and an unlawfully possessed assault weapon is that owner's failure to register the firearm with the State police. In other words, charging someone with unlawful possession of an unregistered assault weapon pursuant to the NY SAFE Act is the functional equivalent of charging that person with failure to register that weapon. Any thoughts, criticism, feedback - all greatly appreciated.
Maxb49 is offline  
Old February 6, 2013, 11:54 AM   #64
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,062
I would also give a look at comparing registration to the government demanding registration of everyone who buys Catcher in the Rye or checks it out at the library, given it's urban legend with a grain of salt connections to numerous assassinations and attempts over the years. We either have a right to privacy, or we don't. We're either presumed not guilty or we're not.
JimDandy is offline  
Old February 6, 2013, 12:09 PM   #65
Ruthless4christ
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 24, 2007
Location: CNY
Posts: 790
How does one ensure that one is included in the lawsuit? i sent an email to Mr. Tresmond the first day it was posted online, but I have not received any emails/calls confirming anything. Will any updates etc. ever be sent out to anyone?
Ruthless4christ is offline  
Old February 6, 2013, 12:11 PM   #66
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 17,466
You don't necessarily need to "be included". They want it to make it Class Action but the law will either stand or fall for all of us. (All of you, I'm still leaving)
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
You do not HAVE a soul. You ARE a soul. You HAVE a body.
-----
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 February 6, 2013, 12:16 PM   #67
hogdogs
Staff In Memoriam
 
Join Date: October 31, 2007
Location: Western Florida panhandle
Posts: 11,071
Just to be specific... Many shotguns CANNOT be easily modified to hold mre than 10 rounds...
Quote:
First of all, every shotgun can be easily modified, by the average person, to hold more than ten rounds with a simple magazine extension tube.
My Mossberg 500 20 gauge would be a difficult project...

I have a 5/16ths hole in my barrel lug so a tube extension is of little use on my gun...

Many auto loader guns are also not so easy to modify nor was my Mossberg bolt action guns...

Sure some can easily accept a tube extension but many MANY cannot...

Brent
hogdogs is offline  
Old February 6, 2013, 12:25 PM   #68
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 17,466
Brent,

Most shotguns don't require modifications to hold more than 7 rounds. I don't think they make a 20ga version, but virtually all 12ga guns are llegal because of...

1 3/4" mini-shells


__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
You do not HAVE a soul. You ARE a soul. You HAVE a body.
-----
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 February 6, 2013, 12:36 PM   #69
hogdogs
Staff In Memoriam
 
Join Date: October 31, 2007
Location: Western Florida panhandle
Posts: 11,071
I forgot about the Prison Riot Control rounds known in these parts as "Poacher loads"...

Brent
hogdogs is offline  
Old February 6, 2013, 01:38 PM   #70
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 17,466
I'm not really a shotgunner, obviously the people who wrote the law aren't either.

The nature of this suit is something that bothers me a bit. Even if we "win", it seems as though it will simply be rewritten to address the faults exposed in the suit and we'll be saddled with an even stronger version of the law.
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
You do not HAVE a soul. You ARE a soul. You HAVE a body.
-----
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 February 6, 2013, 02:02 PM   #71
MWalsh
Member
 
Join Date: March 20, 2009
Posts: 30
Quote:
Any thoughts, criticism, feedback - all greatly appreciated.
Here's mine. Haynes was self-incrimination. The guy was a criminal and upon registration he would have been charged as one--not for failing to register, but for his previous crime of illegally owning the weapon, correct?

What happens in July 2014 to a non-registered AW owner? He is committing a felony. If he is caught with this unregistered gun he's in trouble. However, the important question is: What happens in July 2014 if he registers? It's obvious that registering at that point is admittance that up until that day he was a felon, for not having registered his AW, but will there be amnesty for any late-registrations? If so, I am not sure Haynes applies, because the self-incriminating action of registering after the fact will lead to no penalty or charging of a crime. The only exception here would be for other felons (not a felon because of lack of registration, but for other reasons--like owning it while already a convinced felon), like Haynes, in which case perhaps the law is unconstitutional--but only as it applies to felons.
MWalsh is offline  
Old February 6, 2013, 05:42 PM   #72
2ndsupporter
Junior Member
 
Join Date: February 6, 2013
Posts: 12
Use Millers in common use

A previous post lists many guns that hold more than seven rounds that are lever action. Even a 22 revolver is/will now be banned. These are all guns that have been around for quite some time (1800's). In common use from miller and heller seem to be the strongest way to fight this nonsense.

I'm not convinced the judges will find the registration unconstitutional. Common use has been held up most recently and is stronger argument to me.
2ndsupporter is offline  
Old February 6, 2013, 06:04 PM   #73
MWalsh
Member
 
Join Date: March 20, 2009
Posts: 30
Actually it appears according to this: http://www.nyfirearms.com/forums/han...l-still-2.html

maybe the aforementioned weapons are ok.
MWalsh is offline  
Old February 6, 2013, 06:19 PM   #74
2ndsupporter
Junior Member
 
Join Date: February 6, 2013
Posts: 12
Can't get the ipad to copy paste right now but they are referring to the wrong part of the new law. further in the law anything that has capacity greater than 7 is banned. exception for tubular fed rifle 22. no exception for nine shot revolver 22. In addition 8 shot .357 mag would also be banned. I'm sure there are more.

Last edited by 2ndsupporter; February 6, 2013 at 07:18 PM. Reason: added .357
2ndsupporter is offline  
Old February 6, 2013, 07:53 PM   #75
carguychris
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 5,271
Quote:
further in the law anything that has capacity greater than 7 is banned. exception for tubular fed rifle 22. no exception for nine shot revolver 22. In addition 8 shot .357 mag would also be banned.
AFAIK it is not 100% clear whether >7 shot revolvers, along with >7rd en bloc clips (e.g. M1 Garand), count as LCAFDs. I have discussed this at length in other threads. It seems like they could be covered if the wording is interpreted in a particular way, but AFAIK the actual applicability is unclear.

OTOH integral tubular centerfire magazines clearly CAN be considered LCAFDs because rimfire mags are exempted.

Speaking of such magazines... another similar quandary to the "mini shells" is a .357Mag lever rifle loaded with .38 Long Colt or a .44Mag lever rifle loaded with .44 Russian. It's doubtful that most modern manufacturers have bothered to measure the mag capacity of these rifles when loaded with these obsolete, shorter cartridges, but the capacity could increase by 2-3 rounds, leaving owners or buyers in a state of potentially unknown legal jeopardy.
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak
carguychris 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 06:43 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2013 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.16288 seconds with 7 queries