The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old February 6, 2013, 08:45 PM   #76
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,085
Perhaps the SAFE act has vulnerabilities in the area of vague and ambiguous.
maestro pistolero is offline  
Old February 6, 2013, 08:50 PM   #77
Maxb49
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:
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.
Brian, this is an excellent point. It's safe to say that everyone here shares your worries. If they knock out the assault weapon's registry, it's hard to imagine how that could be resurrected. Knocking out the registry takes a lot of wind out of Cuomo's sails - for example, enforcing a transfer ban is impossible without a registry.

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 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?
Good question. Hayes was actually charged with failing to register the firearm. He was a criminal, and any firearm in his possession would be illegally possessed. However, the particular firearm in his possession was an 11" Stevens double barrel shotgun, a firearm that was required to be registered under the National Firearms Act.

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:
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.
So what if there is an amnesty? An amnesty would be nothing more than a deadline extension. What happens after *that* date when people fail to register? Again, they would be charged with criminal possession of a firearm on the basis of failing to register that firearm.
Maxb49 is offline  
Old February 6, 2013, 09:28 PM   #78
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,669
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maxb49
Brian, this is an excellent point. It's safe to say that everyone here shares your worries. If they knock out the assault weapon's registry, it's hard to imagine how that could be resurrected. Knocking out the registry takes a lot of wind out of Cuomo's sails - for example, enforcing a transfer ban is impossible without a registry.
It isn't hard at all to imagine how the assault weapon ban can be resurrected if it is defeated based on Haynes, it can be resurrected to look just like the current NFA registry which was upheld and distinguished from Haynes in U. S. vs. Freed, 401 U.S. 601 (1971).

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?
Bartholomew Roberts is online now  
Old February 7, 2013, 01:49 AM   #79
hermannr
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.
hermannr is offline  
Old February 7, 2013, 08:01 PM   #80
Maxb49
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.
Maxb49 is offline  
Old February 7, 2013, 08:04 PM   #81
MLeake
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?
MLeake is offline  
Old February 7, 2013, 09:11 PM   #82
MWalsh
Member
 
Join Date: March 20, 2009
Posts: 31
Quote:
So what if there is an amnesty? An amnesty would be nothing more than a deadline extension. What happens after *that* date when people fail to register? Again, they would be charged with criminal possession of a firearm on the basis of failing to register that firearm.
But what about an "eternal amnesty". I.e. if we catch you prior to registering you are in big trouble but, if at any time, you come clean, we'll wipe the slate on that. I am reminded of the need for each male of 18 years to register with selective service. To not do so shortly after their birthday they can face MAJOR penalties (in reality the rarely if ever do). However, if a 25 year old--6 years late!--decides to do it, he's good to go. His cut off date is 26. Then it's too late, he really missed the bus, but that is a very long amnesty indeed.
Quote:
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?
I strongly suspect a registration of firearms in NY will go the same way. Perhaps it would have had better luck before, but now that people will continually look to the failure of Canada, this registration must fight an uphill battle against a self-fulfilled prophecy, in a way. FWIW my personal feelings are the ammo registration will be a greater waste of time. Although it will by its nature enforce a very high rate of compliance, the huge amounts of data, the uselessness of them, and its ongoing costs as time goes on will threaten its staying alive, IMO.
MWalsh is offline  
Old February 7, 2013, 09:37 PM   #83
Maxb49
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.
Maxb49 is offline  
Old February 8, 2013, 12:21 AM   #84
UncleWilley
Junior Member
 
Join Date: February 5, 2013
Location: Western NY
Posts: 8
Quote:
The New York State Attorney General has contacted Mr. Tresmond requesting an adjournment until the end of April.

This is (tentative) good news.
Is there any chance of an injunction to prevent the 7 round limit going into effect April 15th?
UncleWilley is offline  
Old February 8, 2013, 06:45 AM   #85
Maxb49
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 8, 2007
Location: Jamestown, New York
Posts: 256
I can ask today.
Maxb49 is offline  
Old February 8, 2013, 07:15 AM   #86
MWalsh
Member
 
Join Date: March 20, 2009
Posts: 31
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.
MWalsh is offline  
Old February 8, 2013, 10:07 AM   #87
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,372
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.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old February 8, 2013, 10:33 AM   #88
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,765
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?
Brian Pfleuger is online now  
Old February 8, 2013, 10:45 AM   #89
Maxb49
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.
Maxb49 is offline  
Old February 8, 2013, 12:08 PM   #90
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,765
I figured as much. If the opposition had to approve I don't see them doing so very often.
__________________
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 online now  
Old February 8, 2013, 05:29 PM   #91
UncleWilley
Junior Member
 
Join Date: February 5, 2013
Location: Western NY
Posts: 8
Can we get this thread "Stickied"?
UncleWilley is offline  
Old February 8, 2013, 08:44 PM   #92
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,315
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Willey
Can we get this thread "Stickied"?
In a word... No.

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.
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old February 8, 2013, 09:43 PM   #93
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,427
Whats the WA state case?!
JimDandy is offline  
Old February 9, 2013, 07:42 AM   #94
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,315
WA and CO - Peterson.
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old February 9, 2013, 01:15 PM   #95
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,427
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?
JimDandy is offline  
Old February 11, 2013, 10:00 PM   #96
Tuna2o3
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.
Tuna2o3 is offline  
Old February 12, 2013, 01:06 AM   #97
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,427
Those are bills not cases... they mentioned 2A cases.
JimDandy is offline  
Old February 12, 2013, 09:12 AM   #98
Maxb49
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.
Maxb49 is offline  
Old February 12, 2013, 09:16 AM   #99
unclecracker
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.
unclecracker is offline  
Old February 12, 2013, 04:25 PM   #100
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,315
Max? You know I'm following you here and at NY Firearms?
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris 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 09:54 AM.


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 0.14288 seconds with 7 queries