|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
January 30, 2013, 07:46 AM | #26 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 8, 2007
Location: Jamestown, New York
Posts: 256
|
Quote:
|
|
January 30, 2013, 01:29 PM | #27 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
I would just note that I am extremely comfortable with the statements made by Max, the assertions made of the legal acumen of Mr. Tresmond and his associates, and the nature of this case.
|
January 30, 2013, 01:41 PM | #28 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 26, 2012
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 779
|
Thanks Max. I was asking because I would like to see a SCOTUS ruling on a "AWB" style law and hi-cap magazines so that my state can get rid of their current statues.
Having a 10 round magazine with a polymer extension on the bottom to imitate the length of 30 rds is embarrassing
__________________
I told the new me, "Meet me at the bus station and hold a sign that reads: 'Today is the first day of the rest of your life.'" But the old me met me with a sign that read: "Welcome back." Who you are is not a function of where you are. -Off Minor |
January 30, 2013, 04:34 PM | #29 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 8, 2007
Location: Jamestown, New York
Posts: 256
|
Update
The law firm is making public its centerpiece signature attack on the SAFE Act. According to Tresmond and his team, the SAFE Act's registration registration requirement violates the precedent set forth in Haynes v. United States. This was a landslide 7-1 decision from the liberal 1968 Supreme Court, which held that registration requirements are virtually unenforceable for rifles that are already owned by violate the Fifth Amendment's protection against self incrimination. Furthermore, the Act commits a violation of the 14th Amendmen's Equal Protection clause, because individuals who disobey the assault weapons registration requirement under PL 400.00 subdivision 16(a) and thereby become felons, will be afforded full protection by the law under the Haynes doctrine while law abiding citizens will be forced to circumscribe their liberty. This devastating attack upon the assault weapons registration program, the piece de resistance of the NY SAFE Act, will be difficult for the Attorney General to overcome. More to come... |
January 30, 2013, 05:52 PM | #30 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 15, 2013
Location: South Jersey
Posts: 1,416
|
^^^ Does the entire SAFE act then get thrown out, or just that part of it?
|
January 30, 2013, 06:03 PM | #31 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 8, 2007
Location: Jamestown, New York
Posts: 256
|
Unfortunately, the bill contains a severability clause, so the legal team had to choose the most vulnerable parts of the law.
The registration program is the Act's major feature. Onward... |
January 30, 2013, 06:34 PM | #32 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 3, 2011
Location: Upstate,New york
Posts: 308
|
Interesting... I ope they proceed with caution from here on about what they attack on the "SAFE" act.
|
January 30, 2013, 07:27 PM | #33 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 26, 2012
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 779
|
I hope the magazine limit is absolutely demolished in its entirety.
__________________
I told the new me, "Meet me at the bus station and hold a sign that reads: 'Today is the first day of the rest of your life.'" But the old me met me with a sign that read: "Welcome back." Who you are is not a function of where you are. -Off Minor |
January 30, 2013, 07:54 PM | #34 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 8, 2007
Location: Jamestown, New York
Posts: 256
|
The ban was attacked with the with the overbreadth doctrine.
The magazine ban actually outlaws the 7 shot Remington 870 and similar pump action shotguns due to the availability of 1.75" shells. Shotguns are protected by the common use doctrine. All in all, this is a good lawsuit. |
January 30, 2013, 07:56 PM | #35 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 24, 2011
Posts: 730
|
Interesting...another good reason not to register your long gun in NY...I knew about the 5th amendment but not the others...
|
January 30, 2013, 09:07 PM | #36 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 8, 2007
Location: Jamestown, New York
Posts: 256
|
Thanks everyone for following this thread!
Just throwing this hypothetical out there - please give me your honest opinion: Would Governor Cuomo survive the political backlash if the average 12 gauge shotgun were confiscated, given how prevalent this gun is in the American culture? (This is a very important hypothetical) |
January 30, 2013, 09:32 PM | #37 |
Junior member
Join Date: January 26, 2012
Posts: 1,066
|
^^ The answer is "are you kidding?"
He would be voted out in the next election. Zero doubt. Even those who are completely agaist handguns and EBR's understand that a Shotgun is (generally) mainly a sporting implement for both the landed gentry and the average joe. Willie . |
January 30, 2013, 09:56 PM | #38 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 15, 2013
Location: South Jersey
Posts: 1,416
|
Yeah. Even the Brits are allowed to have a shotgun.
|
January 30, 2013, 10:31 PM | #39 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 8, 2007
Location: Jamestown, New York
Posts: 256
|
That's exactly what everyone over here was thinking. And we are positive that Heller protects shotguns under the common usage doctrine.
Here's the problem: The act exempts standard pump action shotguns from the assault weapons category, but not from the large capacity ammunition feeding device category. The Remington 870, and like guns, hold 7 rounds, right? Yes, when measured with 3" shells. But shell length is not uniform! How many 1 3/4" shells can the 7 shot Remington 870 hold? Answer: At least 12. Ergo, by the letter of the law, the 870 with its integral magazine that cannot be irreversibly modified is a large capacity ammunition feeding device, the possession of which will soon be a misdemeanor offense. Think about it. If the world's most popular shotgun is protected by Heller, then the amendments to Penal Law 265 are overbroad. Of course, this was another charge raised in the suit. Petitioners and sellers have a legitimate fear of prosecution if they want to exercise their right to buy or sell an 870, post-SAFE Act. Scary, isn't it? |
January 30, 2013, 10:47 PM | #40 |
Junior member
Join Date: January 26, 2012
Posts: 1,066
|
And we are positive that Heller protects shotguns under the common usage doctrine.
Then it should protect the AR-15, inarguably the most commonly sold centerfire rifle in the USA. It's the modern-day lever action Winchester. Speaking of lever action Winchesters... Check the capacities of these common cowboy rifles. None are less than 9 and some are 13.... Let's start out with the most elderly "modern" repeater, the Henry: http://www.uberti.com/firearms/1860-henry.php And the 1866 is no exception to the 13 shots rule: http://www.uberti.com/firearms/1866-yellowboy.php Who could ban an 1873 lever action rifle with a straight face? http://www.uberti.com/firearms/1873-...nd-carbine.php Great Grand-pops deer rifle upstate might just be a Winchester 1892. Magazine capacity on that deer assault-weapon? 15 (plus one in the chamber). And the biggie: THE penultimate deer rifle in New York is the 1894 Winchester. While carbines outnumber rifles, there are plenty of rifles about. Those hold, err... NINE. I bet the local farmers are not gonna like this one bit... Go for the throat. The best fight is one that's over before the other guy knows it's begun. Willie . Last edited by Willie Sutton; January 30, 2013 at 11:07 PM. |
January 30, 2013, 11:10 PM | #41 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Willie? Have you looked to see how many states require a shotgun for deer hunting?
Now add in all the skeet/clay shooters... It's in there. |
January 30, 2013, 11:18 PM | #42 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 9, 2011
Location: Land of the Free
Posts: 2,834
|
I hope you all win this case, and reversal on those 10 rounds, so you can use 15 standard rounds magazine in handguns.
|
January 31, 2013, 12:23 AM | #43 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 24, 2011
Posts: 730
|
Al: as to shotguns required to hunt deer...add places like WA where you can use a rifle to hunt deer in MOST of the state,,,
but west of I 5 in King, Snohomish, and Skagit Co. you must use a shotgun, as well as on the Ilands in Puget Sound. |
January 31, 2013, 12:26 AM | #44 |
Junior member
Join Date: January 26, 2012
Posts: 1,066
|
^^^
Bear in mind that this is about NEW YORK, and the rights of those residing there. Are there any shotgun-only counties in NY for deer? It's pretty well assumed that they are the right thing for pheasants everyplace.... Willie . |
January 31, 2013, 12:48 AM | #45 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Pheasants and Deer and Turkey, Oh My!
Should I mention ducks and geese? |
January 31, 2013, 04:17 AM | #46 | |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
Quote:
|
|
January 31, 2013, 07:59 AM | #47 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
Guys, most of NY required shotguns for deer hunting until a few years ago.... some counties STILL do!
And, it is undeniable that the 870 and 1100/1187 are the most popular shotguns in use for the purpose. Last edited by Brian Pfleuger; January 31, 2013 at 08:31 AM. |
January 31, 2013, 08:32 AM | #48 |
Junior member
Join Date: January 26, 2012
Posts: 1,066
|
^^^ Brian, that's what I had remembered, being from NJ at the time, where shotguns were (and are) all we could use, and having hunted just 12 miles south of the NY line in PA, where it was a "big deal" that we could use rifles and not shotguns like our unfortunate neighbors just north and back home. It's why we hunted in PA (Bradford County, just south of Elmira).
Thanks for confirming my memory. There are shotgun only counties in NY to this day. Best, Willie . |
January 31, 2013, 01:27 PM | #49 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 13, 2009
Location: NJ
Posts: 1,254
|
Not sure if this is the right thread, but I didn't see this posted anywhere when I looked an hour ago though I didn't look too hard. It seems the Saratoga County Deputy Sheriff's Police Benevolent Association has weighted in on the SAFE Act, and their ticked. They bring up some very good points on how the law was enacted outside of normal procedures for introducing a law and most likely illegally. Seems like this would be a good way to get the law thrown out.
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B56M...V3UjAtN2M/edit |
January 31, 2013, 06:46 PM | #50 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 8, 2007
Location: Jamestown, New York
Posts: 256
|
It's truly a sad day when Mr. Tresmond and his skilled team of attorneys are forced to deal with threats of violence and harm from those people whose rights these attorneys are trying to protect.
This comes just a few short days before Mr. Tresmond makes a formal announcement of his co-counsel, the owner of another high powered and well resourced law firm in the Buffalo region. |
|
|