Maloney v. Rice- the eternal NY nun-chuck coming to a close (hopefully)

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • wolfwood

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 24, 2011
    1,361
    ORDER granting in part and denying in part 174 Motion in Limine: The Court precludes Formichelli's testimony with regards to Plaintiff's consent to the destruction of his nunchucks and the proposition that "possession of certain weapons is presumptive proof of an intent to utilize them for illegal purposes, and the fact that Plaintiff never challenged or attempted to rebut that presumption." However, the Court will take judicial notice of these facts as they are based on prior State Court criminal proceedings related to this case. Ordered by Judge Pamela K. Chen on 1/20/2017. (Lee, Helen) (Entered: 01/20/2017)



    its still going just a few more months though
     

    Attachments

    • nun chuck motion in limnie.pdf
      74.3 KB · Views: 170

    zoostation

    , ,
    Moderator
    Jan 28, 2007
    22,857
    Abingdon
    I just have to laugh at a state that is owned lock, stock, and rotting barrel by La Cosa Nostra yet outlaws ancient flail weapons for martial artists to practice with and makes it difficult to sometimes impossible for a decent law-abiding citizen to own a handgun to keep in his own home, let alone carry one.

    But then again, maybe the fact the mob runs it is why they don't want the decent people armed. Ditto Chicago.
     

    wolfwood

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 24, 2011
    1,361
    more stuff got filed

    Just remember we are only free because of guys like Jim willing to stand up to the government.
     

    Attachments

    • malony plaintiffs find of fact.pdf
      129.6 KB · Views: 576
    • Maloney Defendants findings of fact.pdf
      917.2 KB · Views: 140

    wolfwood

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 24, 2011
    1,361
    update in the case

    Court order came out I am sensing a win
     

    Attachments

    • maloney July 1017 Court order .pdf
      71 KB · Views: 211

    Gryphon

    inveniam viam aut faciam
    Patriot Picket
    Mar 8, 2013
    6,993
    No hijack intended, but thought I'd add a little known fact. Under Maryland law if you have G&S and a C&W permit you are exempt from the prohibition against carrying nun chucks. So in Maryland they are not generally prohibited because they are unusually dangerous weapons. :innocent0
     

    wolfwood

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 24, 2011
    1,361
    And it is now past the due date that they court wanted to additional documents as well. You have to give the plaintiff credit for not quitting on this case but seeing it thru to the end.

    actually the government filed this in the case
     

    Attachments

    • Maloney Singas Letter August 18th 2017.pdf
      150.1 KB · Views: 155

    777GSOTB

    Active Member
    Mar 23, 2014
    363
    It's just so mind-numbing that this case has been going on this long and they need more discovery :sad20:

    It's an intentional game they play, realizing that the other side actually has to finance their case...Unlike the seemingly, unlimited funding the government side has.
     

    press1280

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    7,878
    WV
    It's an intentional game they play, realizing that the other side actually has to finance their case...Unlike the seemingly, unlimited funding the government side has.

    And IIRC, since Maloney is pro se he can't recoup fees if he wins.
     

    wolfwood

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 24, 2011
    1,361
    last thing i saw from the court
    The stamina of Jim Maloney to keep litigating this for 15 years now and it is going.

    Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Pamela K. Chen: Telephonic status conference held on 3/8/18. Appearances by Plaintiff James M. Maloney, pro se; Liora M. Ben-Sorek for Defendant. Case called. Discussion held. As stated on the record, the Court revises and supplements the previous discovery schedule relating to the re-opened trial, set to begin on June 4, 2018: (1) Defendant shall produce to Plaintiff all remaining documentary and physical discovery by April 16, 2018; (2) any additional discovery related to the April 16, 2018 discovery (e.g., depositions, etc.) shall be completed by May 16, 2018; and (3) the parties shall file a Joint Pre-Trial Order by May 23, 2018. The Court advised the parties that the June 4, 2018 trial date will not be adjourned. (Court Reporter Anthony Frisolone.) (Hess, Alexandra) Modified on 3/12/2018 to correct Court Reporter's name. (Abdallah, Fida) (Entered: 03/08/2018)
     

    motorcoachdoug

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    This case has taken WAYYYYYY to long to come to trial IMHO. Major Credit and Congrats to Jim Maloney alone for seeing this thru.. What in the heck happened to a right for a speedy trial??? The defendants need to be taken to the woodshed big time for the delay tactics used!
     

    wolfwood

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 24, 2011
    1,361
    This case has taken WAYYYYYY to long to come to trial IMHO. Major Credit and Congrats to Jim Maloney alone for seeing this thru.. What in the heck happened to a right for a speedy trial??? The defendants need to be taken to the woodshed big time for the delay tactics used!

    That's not happening. You know why this is going to trial? They already had a trial and the Obama judge did not like the result. As a matter of law she could not rule in New York's favor because of what was presented at the trial
    \
    So she said let's have another trial!!! Or in her words she is reopening the trial.

    And here is exactly what you need to do New York to win this one.

    I am still hoping NY drops the ball on this again
     

    Rab1515

    Ultimate Member
    Patriot Picket
    Apr 29, 2014
    2,081
    Calvert
    That's not happening. You know why this is going to trial? They already had a trial and the Obama judge did not like the result. As a matter of law she could not rule in New York's favor because of what was presented at the trial
    \
    So she said let's have another trial!!! Or in her words she is reopening the trial.

    And here is exactly what you need to do New York to win this one.

    I am still hoping NY drops the ball on this again

    How does a judge order a new trial like that?
     

    wolfwood

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 24, 2011
    1,361
    How does a judge order a new trial like that?

    I've never seen anything like it. This is her order

    ORDER: For the reasons stated in the attached Memorandum and Order, the Court declines to grant declaratory judgment in Plaintiff's favor based on the current record and without allowing Defendant an opportunity to supplement the record. The Court, therefore, directs the parties to supplement the record with additional briefing and evidence to address the issues and deficiencies identified in this Memorandum & Order. By August 18, 2017, Defendant shall indicate, in writing, whether it intends to offer additional evidence to rebut the presumption in favor of Second Amendment protection. If Defendant indicates an intention to offer additional evidence, the Court will set a conference to discuss scheduling with respect to the discovery and presentation of any additional evidence. If the Defendant indicates that it does not so intend, it shall file, by September 22, 2017, a supplemental brief discussing the issues raised in this Memorandum & Order, including, but not limited to: (1) the application of New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n, Inc. v. Cuomo, 804 F.3d 242 (2d Cir. 2015), to the instant Second Amendment challenge; (2) evidence that rebuts the presumption in favor of Second Amendment protection, i.e. evidence that nunchakus are either not "in common use" or not "typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes"; (3) the level of scrutiny applicable to this case; and (4) whether the nunchakus ban, N.Y. Penal Law § 265.01, survives constitutional muster, including all evidence supporting Defendant's position on this issue. By October 22, 2017, Plaintiff shall submit a brief in response. Ordered by Judge Pamela K. Chen on 7/23/2017. (Lee, Helen) (Abdallah, Fida). (Entered: 07/23/2017)
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,924
    Messages
    7,259,203
    Members
    33,349
    Latest member
    christian04

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom