New York Firearms Forum banner
1 - 20 of 43 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
605 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
SHEW v. MALLOY | CCDL Blog

Wasnt sure about adding to the NYSRPA v Cuomo thread or open a new thread. This is the CT case agaimst their AW ban which will be heard in tandem with the NY case by the 2nd Circuit. The cases are still seperate, but the same judges will have the briefs of all 4 parties in front of them when theh make their decision.

Off to read the briefs from CT. Could be fun if CT and NY dont have their 'facts' in agreement with each other.

Edit: the plaintif/appelant reply brief is very very similar to the NYSRPA one-- no surprise since tne same lawyers represent us in both cases.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,902 Posts
Keep in mind in NY judge Scurvy considered Mother Jones documentary.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,901 Posts
No cause for concern it reads verbatim in the begging ... NY and CT are clearly pulling together on this. Aside from subtle differences between the 2 laws im sure its all right on par.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,206 Posts
Is it just me? Am I alone in thinking these cases arguing that semi auto "AWs" are protected and mentioning Miller are missing the big picture in that full auto weapons are already protected by the 2A and already confirmed by the SCOTUS BECAUSE THEY HAVE use for military purpose *per* Miller??????
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,901 Posts
I think the goal is to avoid the notion that they can be regulated like FULL AUTO rifles that they are indeed semi automatic rifles like any other in there subset and the features dont make them Unusually Dangerous.

If you did lump them in with select fires then expect the bans to stick and to have to go through the same hoops to own one. Remember the only full autos allowed in circulations are they ones that exist. No more can be added to the stock. We don't want that for Semi Automatics.

Is it just me?

Am I alone in thinking these cases arguing that semi auto "AWs" are protected and mentioning Miller are missing the big picture in that full auto weapons are already protected by the 2A as already confirmed by the SCOTUS *per* Miller??????
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,206 Posts
And my point is that even those regulations and their ban on new ones completely violate the definition and intent of the 2A, and previous SCOTUS rulings on the matter....

As stated in both briefs- the enumeration of this right takes the question off the table for even the 3rd branch of government to decide on a case by case basis... which is exactly what this ban is doing and "presumably" allows
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,735 Posts
Since the same judges are hearing both cases , this is a huge investment by our side refuting everything these states have assembled for evidence ! I read the opinion by Covello in Shew vs Malloy and it's about as thin as sckretny,s opinion in the NYSPRA case . After SCOSGT mentioned something about this case being sent back down to sckretny if it's overturned . This could be a real problem for the state as their " star witnesses " have all repeated hearsay evidence then claimed it as their own . This could be a huge mountain for the state to overcome when the burden is on their side to complete the task . Yes it sucks to ping pong this case back and forth but maybe we can get an injunction against the state until they prove they are the winner in ping pong ! This just an idea at this point .
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,317 Posts
I agreee^^^^ as far as the full autos lets not bite off more then we can chew the first half. We still have more ball game to play and the state could come back and win the game. Short passes and have them frequently is whats gonna win us back our rights not one huge hail mary against the wall and praying that it sticks. Bear arms and i were talking and i said i hope it goes to scotus. Reason being its been 2 years already and yes we are as pissed as just as the that CRAP act was signed. If it goes to scotus in a year and we win it will finish this myth of a assault weapon once and for all, all over the country and for generations to come long after us.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,206 Posts
^^^

Well said! What the at best naive and at worst intentionally subversive "liberal" left fails to grasp is the impact of their feel-good bans on every generation, *every* generation to come beyond our own.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
437 Posts
I still struggle with "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" This is clear English, if there is anything beyond my means of payment for arms, that is an infringement. Did I miss something in my grammar school days to suggest this clause is unclear?
If you are a citizen of this country, well Johnny get your gun.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
480 Posts
I still struggle with "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" This is clear English, if there is anything beyond my means of payment for arms, that is an infringement. Did I miss something in my grammar school days to suggest this clause is unclear?
If you are a citizen of this country, well Johnny get your gun.
Basically, the argument (other than maybe in NYC) is that as long as you can own some type of gun (for example, a single-shot, bolt-action rifle with > 26" barrel), then you still have the right to keep and bear arms. Therefore, they feel OK about limiting certain types. Basically, it's a binary view of the right.

The opposite side, of course, is that the right, itself, must be without restriction to be uninfringed. Therefore, no type may be limited.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,595 Posts
It's clearly written an can not be infringed
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,522 Posts
fingers are crossed... im staking all my hope that we win in court (not the 2C, but SCOTUS). if we dont, and we get stuck with scumo then im really going to have to start thinking about other options. if the citizens of this state are just going to eat this crap like every other infringement and not take back our rights, then i gotta think about moving. personally, if the court burns us id like to see the citizens take back our rights and remind the law makers that they actually do work for us and not their own interests.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,650 Posts
Basically, the argument (other than maybe in NYC) is that as long as you can own some type of gun (for example, a single-shot, bolt-action rifle with > 26" barrel), then you still have the right to keep and bear arms. Therefore, they feel OK about limiting certain types. Basically, it's a binary view of the right.

The opposite side, of course, is that the right, itself, must be without restriction to be uninfringed. Therefore, no type may be limited.
Ultimately, neither view will be supported in the courts, it will be somewhere in the middle. Sadly, right now we are closer to the first paragraph though.

That is consistent with other protections as well - free speech protections do not extend to explicit threats for instance. What is really needed is some guidance on what type of scrutiny must be used to determine what level of restriction can be applied by the government. SCOTUS is really slow walking this though - the two step inquiry being used now by circuits is not consistent with the way other incorporated protections are reviewed, and some decisions by circuits make it clear that the SCOTUS is avoiding their duty by not taking cases which would allow them to publish an opinion that would guide the circuits in how to judge these cases.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
236 Posts
Basically, the argument (other than maybe in NYC) is that as long as you can own some type of gun (for example, a single-shot, bolt-action rifle with > 26" barrel), then you still have the right to keep and bear arms. Therefore, they feel OK about limiting certain types. Basically, it's a binary view of the right.

The opposite side, of course, is that the right, itself, must be without restriction to be uninfringed. Therefore, no type may be limited.
Please point to the NYC exclusion in the Second Amendment. Otherwise, stop saying maybe it doesn't apply there. It does indeed apply to NYC. Good people are having their rights oppressed there, and NYC don't get a free pass, even though the commie crooks who run it think they do.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,901 Posts
By no means do i disagree with you, Hell 95% of existing penal laws fall under the category if you apply Natural law.

And my point is that even those regulations and their ban on new ones completely violate the definition and intent of the 2A, and previous SCOTUS rulings on the matter....

As stated in both briefs- the enumeration of this right takes the question off the table for even the 3rd branch of government to decide on a case by case basis... which is exactly what this ban is doing and "presumably" allows
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,291 Posts
Heller alone gives us enough to win these cases. 1) You cannot ban guns in common use, 2) you cannot ban "Type A" guns just because "Type B" guns exist, 3) Handguns are chosen by civilians because of their features that make them excellent for self defense, same with "aw" features, 4) Just because criminals use a certain type of gun disproportionally doesn't mean you can ban citizens from using it for the lawful purpose of self defense.

I mean, you will really have to do some "constitutional backflips" to come up with a decision that defies this logic.
 
1 - 20 of 43 Posts
Top