New York Firearms Forum banner
1 - 18 of 18 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,768 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
http://www.scopeny.org/ARCHIVES/2AC_WP_09162014.pdf

Got an email from SCOPE with a link to this white paper. I'm not a legal scholar so I don't know how much credence it should be given in a court of law, but I like that for the most part it explains things in relatively easy terms. Lots of useful critique of unSAFE and the dealings of the state.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,735 Posts
This is a great read ! It explains why it is critical to argue everything in front of the court because of the lack of facts by the state ! In the article the author says that it will be hard to over come these pieces of " less than factual " information but I'm pretty sure if pushed the state will have nothing ( even with questionable witnesses ) to which our lawyer should be able to either dispute or get thrown out for hearsay evidence . The article explains everything very well right down to the nitty gritty that even an idiot like me can understand . I was very suprised that the state for all of it's resources doesn't have more evidence but I'm kind of glad they don't ! Halbrook should be able to refute all of this as hearsay and find expert testimony that can and will expose all of the lies the state has tried to " slide by " the court as factual evidence . I'm sure that Halbrook and Michel are teaming up for this endeavor as we speak . I know that the second hasn't been 2 A but I got a feeling that once the state is exposed on the less than factual admissions , this suit gets overturned ! ( I just got this " gut feeling " that something big is about to happen )
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,468 Posts
the supposed purpose of a Court of Law ..
is to apply the Law to the Facts of a Case, according to the Rules of Evidence

but ..
then there is .. New York
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,953 Posts
It basically refutes all the Mother Jones articles being used as "fact" by these liberal judges to defend their decisions. Great work!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
644 Posts
It basically refutes all the Mother Jones articles being used as "fact" by these liberal judges to defend their decisions. Great work!
Doesn't matter. It's too late.

The lower court rules on Fact. The appeal courts rule on questions of law. The facts of this case are already decided.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,617 Posts
The SCOPE white paper also correctly asks the question: "What if a Liberal-leaning Supreme Court decides to hear this case?" It is possible that everything in the lower court decisions could become federal law. There would then be a Liberal free-for-all gun grab the likes of which even we peons in The Peoples' Republic of New York have never imagined. So, hold on to your shorts, folks. If the Supreme Court ever decides to take a case from one of the gun-grabbing Liberal states we could be in for quite a ride. Especially, if the balance of the justices on the Supreme Court shifts more Liberal before such a case is heard.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,953 Posts
Yes but the gun grabbers have been spewing anecdotes and made-up statistics for years, it's about time someone on our side challenged those "facts".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,617 Posts
Yes but the gun grabbers have been spewing anecdotes and made-up statistics for years, it's about time someone on our side challenged those "facts".
Oh...most certainly. The ultimate face off must eventually occur. I'm just not confident that future justices who are intent on "social justice" and believe in a "living and breathing" constitution are going to see things the way we do.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
605 Posts
The lower court rules on Fact. The appeal courts rule on questions of law. The facts of this case are already decided.
The point of the whitepaper though is that there are rules of law about what constitutes 'facts' and the standards for decidimg what is a 'fact' The lower court may have decided that these are facts, but the appeals court can decide the question of law 'were these statements admisable as facts or are they hearsay?'

Additionally, even if certain items are deemed 'facts' there is still a question of law about do the facts reasonably support the conclusion to a legal standard. For example- it doesnt matter if a judge says all the facts lead a to a preponderance of evidence if the standard is supppsed to be beyond a shadow of doubt. The higher court can still overturn the decision without judging the facts.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,291 Posts
This is a great read ! It explains why it is critical to argue everything in front of the court because of the lack of facts by the state ! In the article the author says that it will be hard to over come these pieces of " less than factual " information but I'm pretty sure if pushed the state will have nothing ( even with questionable witnesses ) to which our lawyer should be able to either dispute or get thrown out for hearsay evidence . The article explains everything very well right down to the nitty gritty that even an idiot like me can understand . I was very suprised that the state for all of it's resources doesn't have more evidence but I'm kind of glad they don't ! Halbrook should be able to refute all of this as hearsay and find expert testimony that can and will expose all of the lies the state has tried to " slide by " the court as factual evidence . I'm sure that Halbrook and Michel are teaming up for this endeavor as we speak . I know that the second hasn't been 2 A but I got a feeling that once the state is exposed on the less than factual admissions , this suit gets overturned ! ( I just got this " gut feeling " that something big is about to happen )
Your level of optimism is astounding. Please tell me that your cousin in a judge in the Second Circuit because honestly, as a NY gun owner, I am pretty skeptical. If we lose I wouldn't be shocked.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,291 Posts
Okay, just got done reading the whole thing. I'm confused? Is this supposed to make us feel better. Correct me if I am wrong; basically the state violated all the rules used to present a legitimate case and since the judge let them get away with it, it's okay and since the judge fell for their bull**** the state can now use those tainted "facts" against us again on appeal?

Or does the state have to actually defend those "facts" they presented and we get to throw them out as hearsay? But it seems like this white paper says that despite the rule of a law a judge can do whatever they want and accept the facts? Is that right???

The conclusion here wasn't very reassuring either. Again, if I am reading this right, a judge can forgo legal "rules and procedures" and rule based on their emotions? Does this mean I can submit a "Peanuts" comic strip as "evidence?" I hope I am reading this wrong and it means that our side still has the ability to challenge the state's "facts" because if not then Skretny ****ed us harder than I thought... Mother ****ing Jones... what a crock of ****.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,206 Posts
Does anyone know whether the false testimony being used to trample our rights qualifies, legally, as perjury?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
740 Posts
Our rights be damned, the govt does what it wants, and only "follows" the constitution when it suits them. They will ignore the constitution or make stuff up as it suits them. You can thank 100 years of progressive (liberal) assault on the constitution for this. The scum are so deeply entrenched in this state, I don't know how this gets fixed, or even if it's possible. This goes deeper than the governor. The legislature, the courts, the bureaucracy, the schools, many big business (the owner of home depot supports kw0m0), etc are all against us, and they despise the constitution.

Sorry to be negative, but that's how I see things. This state has been fully subverted.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,291 Posts
And another thing, page 7 says the appeal is going after the ban on weapons and mags and the vagueness of the law... nothing mentioned about ammo. Are they giving up on that?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,735 Posts
Okay, just got done reading the whole thing. I'm confused? Is this supposed to make us feel better. Correct me if I am wrong; basically the state violated all the rules used to present a legitimate case and since the judge let them get away with it, it's okay and since the judge fell for their bull**** the state can now use those tainted "facts" against us again on appeal?

Or does the state have to actually defend those "facts" they presented and we get to throw them out as hearsay? But it seems like this white paper says that despite the rule of a law a judge can do whatever they want and accept the facts? Is that right???

The conclusion here wasn't very reassuring either. Again, if I am reading this right, a judge can forgo legal "rules and procedures" and rule based on their emotions? Does this mean I can submit a "Peanuts" comic strip as "evidence?" I hope I am reading this wrong and it means that our side still has the ability to challenge the state's "facts" because if not then Skretny ****ed us harder than I thought... Mother ****ing Jones... what a crock of ****.
If you read the article it says that yes the judge accepted the states BS as fact but in the appeals court we can object to the " facts " used by the state so I'm expecting that the state will be admonished for using " tainted " so - called facts along with their " tainted " witnesses so I'm expecting something huge to come out of this appeals court . The judge is supposed to rule upon facts not emotions . So since it was explained that the states evidence is paper thin ( even though it's none volumes ) Halbrook can overcome these obstacles to be victorious over the state so I'm betting even though the second is not 2 A , they still have to abide by the rule of law !
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,291 Posts
I would hope our side can throw out all of the state's "facts" but the 2C has never, ever, one in its history ruled in favor of gun owners. The only amendment that specifically states it "shall not be infringed" has basicalled been voided by the courts. We're lucky we still have bolt actions. In the eyes of the court we are all hunters and any gun not needed to hunt can be banned.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,735 Posts
I would hope our side can throw out all of the state's "facts" but the 2C has never, ever, one in its history ruled in favor of gun owners. The only amendment that specifically states it "shall not be infringed" has basicalled been voided by the courts. We're lucky we still have bolt actions. In the eyes of the court we are all hunters and any gun not needed to hunt can be banned.
This court hasn't had very many suits about the 2A to decide . They are about to get " schooled " real quick in this suit . If they continue to use the very opinions that SCOTUS said that they rejected I'm pretty sure something big will come out of this suit !
 
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
Top