SAF Sues New York Over 'SAFE Act' Magazine Limits

[taz-2005]

Good, lawsuits are the only way to get results now anyway.

SAF Sues New York Over 'SAFE Act' Magazine Limits - MarketWatch

SAF is joined in the lawsuit by the Shooters Committee for Political Education (SCOPE) and Long Island Firearms LLC. They are represented by New York attorneys David Jensen and Robert P. Firriolo........
..........

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York, asserts that the seven-round loading restriction violates the Second Amendment because it "substantially interferes with the right of law abiding citizens to defend themselves and is not sufficiently related to any compelling or otherwise adequate government interest."

"The cartridge limit is arbitrary and serves no useful purpose other than to frustrate, and perhaps entrap, law abiding citizens who own firearms with standard capacity magazines that were designed to hold more than seven rounds," said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. "Several top law enforcement officials have already publicly stated they will not enforce provisions of this law, yet Gov. Cuomo and Supt. D'Amico are pushing ahead.

 

[Admin]

Should be a slam dunk. My biggest issue with unconstitutional laws like this is the people who make them do not pay the price for stomping on freedom.

 

[boscru]

Should be a slam dunk. My biggest issue with unconstitutional laws like this is the people who make them do not pay the price for stomping on freedom.

or if they were forced to pay it would of course be on our dime

 

[Winchester73]

Should be a slam dunk. My biggest issue with unconstitutional laws like this is the people who make them do not pay the price for stomping on freedom.

Agreed. As long as there are no consequences for behavior like this then expect it to continue.

 

[Lukes83]

Will this make MA politicians think twice about passing the 7 round limit here? Doubtful, but one can dream.. [sad2]

 

[Garys]

"Magazines that hold ten or more rounds are in common use all over the country," Gottlieb concluded.

I think that common use would be the hook that could win this case. The Supreme Court specifically referred to that phrase in Heller. I think that the SAF et al, are in a good position. Of course it will probably require another Supreme Court decision to get there.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Will this make MA politicians think twice about passing the 7 round limit here? Doubtful, but one can dream.. [sad2]

No because they lack the mental capacity to think!


However, Comm2A could use a favorable ruling as a precedent in challenging the large-capacity mag ban in MA. It doesn't effect us directly but is an excellent lever to get the current MA law overturned in a 1983 action.

 

[Pilgrim]

they apparently don't care about the other aspects of the "Safe Act?" Magazines are the most important thing to them?

??????????????

 

[taz-2005]

they apparently don't care about the other aspects of the "Safe Act?" Magazines are the most important thing to them?

??????????????

Easy pickings first?

 

[hv55maxx]

Please win. So sick of paying high prices for ancient mags.

 

[noddaduma]

I think that common use would be the hook that could win this case. The Supreme Court specifically referred to that phrase in Heller. I think that the SAF et al, are in a good position. Of course it will probably require another Supreme Court decision to get there.

That and the level of scrutiny established by McDonald.

 

[agile_1]

they apparently don't care about the other aspects of the "Safe Act?" Magazines are the most important thing to them?

??????????????

There are several lawsuits in progress in NY. Each one is for is different part of the law.

Check it out: Laws and Politics

Case name: Dywinski, Richard v. State of New York
Case number: 000290/2013
Attorneys involved: James D. Tresmond, Eric Schneiderman (NYS Attorney General)
Next court date: Trial set for beginning of January 2014
Relevant threads/links: Tresmond Lawsuit information - USE THIS THREAD
Quick overview of case: Dywinski is suing the state regarding the SAFE Act. The lawsuit is challenging the state on a number of issues. Bans on commonly used weapons (like shotguns), self incrimination via late registration, and the high capacity magazine ban are among those issues.


Case name: New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, et al. v. Andrew M. Cuomo, et al.
Case number: 13-cv-00291-WMS
Attorneys involved: Halbrook & Stapleton for NRA
Next court date: unknown
Relevant threads/links: Legal action against Cuomo gun law, Schneiderman responds to NY Safe act suit
Quick overview of case: NYSRPA (along with other parties) are suing the state over magazine capacity, ban on assault weapons, classification of assault weapons, and the vagueness of numerous parts of the law.


Case name: New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. City of NY
Case number: None yet
Attorneys involved: Goldberg Segalla for plaintiffs
Next court date: None yet
Relevant threads/links: NYSRPA files 2nd Amendment civil rights lawsuit against City of New York NYSRPA files 2nd Amendment civil rights lawsuit against City of New York
Quick overview of case: The plaintiffs are suing the city over the regulations that make it illegal to take pistols out of NYC for otherwise legal activities. The plaintiffs are unable to attend Steel Challenge and IDPA matches because the laws forbidding the transport of firearms out of state, hunt without authorization from the license division.


Case name: Holtz v. Cuomo
Case number: 1000267/2013
Attorneys involved: Tresmond for plaintiff
Next court date: 8/12/2013
Relevant threads/links:
Quick overview of case: This case attacks the assault weapon sale and transfer ban citing Heller, McDonald, and right to work cases like the Slaughter Cases.


updates:
6/7/13 - Added Holtz v Cuomo
6/14/13 - Changed next court date for Dywinsky
7/1/13 - Added link in 13-cv-00291-WMS
8/7/13 - Changed next court date for Dywinsky and NRA/13-cv-00291-WMS Safe Act lawsuits
9/13/13 - Changed next court date to unknown for NRA/13-cv-00291-WMS Safe Actlawsuit
9/18/13 - Changed next court date to "Trial set for beginning of January 2014" for Dywinsky

 

[MetalgodZ]

There are several lawsuits in progress in NY. Each one is for is different part of the law.

Check it out: Laws and Politics

The separation of the legal actions makes it more likely to have a positive effect while limiting the damage that any one failure can cause. This is what I was talking about when I mentioned prudence in the organization of an OC event.

Anyone who is serious about making this type of law go away should be paying attention to this both from a supporting standpoint, and a research standpoint. If you have dollars to spare, NY and the SAF is where they ought to be spent right now.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

The attorney here is David Jensen who is representing Comm2A (and by extension all of you reading this) in Jarvis and Davis.

they apparently don't care about the other aspects of the "Safe Act?" Magazines are the most important thing to them?

If you don't focus like a laser on very narrow, specific issues, you'll fail. Each unconstitutional aspect of the SAFE act has to challenged on it's own. You pick the thing apart into it's component pieces and make your case against each piece.

 

[falcon123]

they apparently don't care about the other aspects of the "Safe Act?" Magazines are the most important thing to them?

??????????????

Every journey start with simple step, grasshoppa.

 

[falcon123]

The attorney here is David Jensen who is representing Comm2A (and by extension all of you reading this) in Jarvis and Davis.

If you don't focus like a laser on very narrow, specific issues, you'll fail. Each unconstitutional aspect of the SAFE act has to challenged on it's own. You pick the thing apart into it's component pieces and make your case against each piece.

IOW use the D-Day approach instead of the Charge of the Light brigade.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

If you don't focus like a laser on very narrow, specific issues, you'll fail.

Bingo!

A key to a successful case is to structure the challenge so narrowly there is only one question for the court to answer, and make such a compelling argument that even a court that "wants" your side to lose cannot rule against you with any intellectual honesty.

When you bring a case with multiple points, you are handing the court a shopping list of reasons to rule against you to pick from ... lose on any one point and the court can use it to shoot down your entire case.

This sort of thing is why pro-se cases, and cases filed by criminal defendants as hail mary passes, are so dangerous. Such cases can result in bad precedent or, can "block" a competently presented case addressing the same issue from reaching the court.

 

[OnTheRoad]

How do you eat an elephant?

One bite at a time.

 

[MA_Shooter]

No because they lack the mental capacity to think!


However, Comm2A could use a favorable ruling as a precedent in challenging the large-capacity mag ban in MA. It doesn't effect us directly but is an excellent lever to get the current MA law overturned in a 1983 action.

That and there are no consequences for passing unconstitutional laws. It would take someone with $$ to challenge it in court and even then, any fines would be paid by the taxpayer. What a system.

 

[exo]

"Magazines that hold [strike=1]ten[/strike]THIRTY or more rounds are in common use all over the country," Gottlieb concluded.

FIFY, Gottlieb.

 

[Tackdriver VillenTactical]

Someone who knows please fill me in, but how is a 10 round limit thusfar not been deemed a constitional violation yet a 7 round limit would be? Isn't 10 rounds equally arbitrary and capricious? Are the issues/arguments not the same? Maybe it hasn't been challenged, but if it was so obvious I think it would have by now.

Dave

 

[taz-2005]

 

[Golddiggie]

That's NY and PRM limits, not USA limits. Here in Free 'Merica we can have far more than 10 rounds in a mag...

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Here's the complaint if anyone cares to read it.

 

[edhead35]

So are they looking to go back to ten rounds or back to standard capacity?

 

[frenchman]

Should be a slam dunk. My biggest issue with unconstitutional laws like this is the people who make them do not pay the price for stomping on freedom.

I disagree on the slam dunk. In MA, Ca, and all the other places with a (yet) 10 round limit, they got away with a perfectly arbitrary number of boolitz. What makes you believe that they won't get away with 7?
If I was .gov, I'd simply argue that an officer's 1911 model has a 7 round capacity, and the average revolver holds 5-7, and those are pretty common carry options.

 

[terraformer]

So are they looking to go back to ten rounds or back to standard capacity?

Realize various parts of the safe act will/has take(n) effect before the courts can wind them back. One of the issues is during that time, there is a desire to keep criminal prosecutions to a minimum. Plus, if 7 is arbitrary, so it 10.

Realize all of this is part of a larger strategy.

 

[swampy]

The argument of magazine capacity should be for the recognized capacity intended by the manufacturer. If it is 15 rounds then 15 it is. If it is 15 to 33 rounds then that is what it is.

A seven round limit in a gun capable of holding 15 rounds severely hinders one's ability to defend themselves. An attack could be by more than one person. As police records show, it often takes more than one bullet, or more than one full capacity magazine to stop an attack.

 

[xtry51]

Should be a slam dunk. My biggest issue with unconstitutional laws like this is the people who make them do not pay the price for stomping on freedom.

This. They can pass far more laws than you can challenge and overturn. All these cases are pointless.

 

[terraformer]

This. They can pass far more laws than you can challenge and overturn. All these cases are pointless.

Actually, while true, if the people challenging them do their jobs right, while they attack narrow aspects, they do so in search of broader pronouncements from the courts which makes clear much of the other bull shit is also unconstitutional. One narrowly focused case can kill an entire area of the laws.

Keep in mind, the courts know most of this would never stand in 1A, 5A, 4A jurisprudence and that is why Heller was such an atom bomb in the legal world.