NYSRPA v. Cuomo

[krucam]

two quick additions to this case, appellants reply brief:

http://nysrpa.org/files/SAFE/NYSRPA-appellants-response-reply.pdf

and amicus brief from the NY Committee on Open Government regarding the powers of foil laws to get the number registered weapons, with no real data related to who registered them or where they were registered.

http://www.nysrpa.org/files/SAFE/FOIL-Opinion-COGS.pdf

Basically calling BS on most of the States brief, and goes to great lengths to point out that the arms being targeted are protected by the second amendment, it even has a couple of sections devoted to this, namely the aptly titled sections:
"The SAFE Act Is Flatly Unconstitutional Because It Bans Protected
Arms."
"The Notion that a Complete Ban on a Commonly-Used Firearm Does Not Substantially Burden Second Amendment Rights Is Irreconcilable with Heller."

Thanks for the update.

Is there a reason or has this one simply been off the radar?

the one I am speaking of is krucam's thread on the big 2nd amendment cases over at:
http://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=41822

Done!

 

[NY Marksman]

you're welcome on the updates and thanks for adding this to your meta thread,

 

[NY Marksman]

update

Oral arguments have been tentatively scheduled for the week of December 18.
it would be a nice little gift before the holidays, but I don't expect the state to keep this date.

 

[NY Marksman]

yay oral date set

Oral arguments have been set for December 9.

 

[adit]

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2014/12/new_yorks_plot.html

 

[pcfixer]

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2014/12/new_yorks_plot.html

“Whenever the legislators endeavor to take away and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any further obedience and are left to the common refuge, which God hath provided for all men, against force and violence.” ~ John Locke, 2nd Treatise on Government

 

[press1280]

Panel: Cabranes, Lohier, Droney

All 3 Dem-appointed judges
I don't see any links on the CA2 website for oral argument audio either

Best hope IMO for this case is a big overreach by the court that can be later exploited by a big split with another circuit.

 

[SilverBulletZ06]

Panel: Cabranes, Lohier, Droney

All 3 Dem-appointed judges
I don't see any links on the CA2 website for oral argument audio either

Best hope IMO for this case is a big overreach by the court that can be later exploited by a big split with another circuit.

Oral arguments in the CA2 need to be purchased and hosted IIRC.

 

[cad68m_m]

"December 9, 2014 Update: Oral arguments were presented to the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals today. We do not expect a decision before the end of February 2015 at the earliest."

Source: http://www.nysrpa.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=860&Itemid=215

 

[DC-W]

So two weeks times six?

 

[fightinbluhen51]

More...

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/pol...eapons-ban-questioned-judge-article-1.2040367

ETA: Well, actually, that was some hard hitting fact finding by the NY Daily News.

 

[NY Marksman]

Good news everyone!

michellawyers.com was kind enough to order a CD of the Orals, so if they post it we may at least be able to hear these judges question our rights, though most of the news stories don't paint us a good picture for these judges.

 

[press1280]

More...

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/pol...eapons-ban-questioned-judge-article-1.2040367

ETA: Well, actually, that was some hard hitting fact finding by the NY Daily News.

It said the case was ,"expected to reach the US Supreme Court." I guess that means it'll be appealed to the US Supreme Court, because after cert denial after cert denial I don't know how much stock one can put into the SCOTUS taking one case or another.

 

[FlatsFlite]

More...

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/pol...eapons-ban-questioned-judge-article-1.2040367

ETA: Well, actually, that was some hard hitting fact finding by the NY Daily News.

Your sarcasm was drowned out by my need for information.

 

[fightinbluhen51]

Your sarcasm was downed out by my need for information.

Sorry....

It wasn't the NY Post...just sayin'.

 

[Maverick0313]

two quick additions to this case, appellants reply brief:

http://nysrpa.org/files/SAFE/NYSRPA-appellants-response-reply.pdf

and amicus brief from the NY Committee on Open Government regarding the powers of foil laws to get the number registered weapons, with no real data related to who registered them or where they were registered.

http://www.nysrpa.org/files/SAFE/FOIL-Opinion-COGS.pdf

Basically calling BS on most of the States brief, and goes to great lengths to point out that the arms being targeted are protected by the second amendment, it even has a couple of sections devoted to this, namely the aptly titled sections:
"The SAFE Act Is Flatly Unconstitutional Because It Bans Protected
Arms."
"The Notion that a Complete Ban on a Commonly-Used Firearm Does Not Substantially Burden Second Amendment Rights Is Irreconcilable with Heller."

Thanks for the update!

 

[NY Marksman]

updates from connecticut

while not directly connected to this case they Shew v Malloy was was argued in conjunction with NYSRPA v Cuomo and apparently the gun groups may have worked together better than the states governments side did. and while not a perfect predictor, it would be hard to come out with different decisions for each, with them being so similar.
so i found a recap from Connecticut gun group's site:

However, it was abundantly clear by the end of the arguments that our legal team was best prepared with excellent responses to the justices’ questions.

David Thompson completely destroyed the testimony offered by Christopher Koper, the key expert witness for both NY and CT. By the end of the arguments, it was clear to the judges that Koper admitted that “There is little evidence that the AW ban will work or that bans of any ‘military features’ will have any effect.” Both lawyers for NY and CT scrambled to answer this apparent contradiction from their key expert witness with no effect. In fact, they were forced to resort to quoting the “Mother Jones” website as the only other ‘expert’ testimony that they could offer!

One key mistake that the NY and CT attorneys seemed to make was in arguing that the Heller case was strictly concerning handguns. In fact, the case made it clear that the type of firearms protected are “Those in common use for lawful purposes.” Our attorney made that point very clear and even quoted the dissenting Justice Stevens from the SCOTUS Heller case in agreeing that the Heller ruling was NOT only about handguns. It’s not a very good fact pattern for the defense when the Supreme Court Justice on their side actually agrees with OUR assessment of the case.

In short, our legal team clearly came out on top in this phase of the case. That does not mean that we will get a favorable decision however. Intellectual honesty on the part of the panel of judges is key at this point in order to win at this level.

don't know how they would be able to walk back that their expert said this wouldn't work...

 

[DC-W]

Thanks for posting this! Here's to a favorable decision!

 

[NY Marksman]

oreal arguements on youtube

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-PwRnK9jlhE



gotta say lots of good points made and the judges really did seem skeptical on parts of the mag bans, and some other points

 

[press1280]

Our side did well, theirs was really weak. I still could sense the judges' bias so look for an opinion which won't be very favorable although the 7 round limit might remain struck down, just like it was in the district court.