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

Rab1515 · May 23, 2018

wolfwood said:
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)

Your not kidding about the judge. Basically the judge could posable rule in the states favor so she must give them a second chance. Wow.

press1280 · May 23, 2018

I'm wondering if Maloney could try the legal maneuver (habeus?) that was tried in the Palmer case when it seemed like it was never going to end? This is absolutely ridiculous.

wolfwood · May 23, 2018

press1280 said:
I'm wondering if Maloney could try the legal maneuver (habeus?) that was tried in the Palmer case when it seemed like it was never going to end? This is absolutely ridiculous.

Probably not. The court is having a new trial pretty soon.

wolfwood · May 24, 2018

new stuff filed last night

Jim is taking it to them that is for sure

It just dawned on me that I started this thread about this case hopefully ending soon 4 years ago.

Bob A · May 24, 2018

Apparently the original charges were brought in 2000?

Hope the plaintiff lives long enough to taste the fruits of victory. After 17 years in the court system, he's unlikely to be able to afford anything else to eat.

ironpony · May 24, 2018

Had to say "coming to a close" in the title didn't ya ....

wolfwood · May 24, 2018

Bob A said:
Apparently the original charges were brought in 2000?

Hope the plaintiff lives long enough to taste the fruits of victory. After 17 years in the court system, he's unlikely to be able to afford anything else to eat.

The plaintiff is a lawyer representing himself. There is no way anyone could afford to keep this up if they were paying a lawyer unless you were Bill gates

MJD438 · May 24, 2018

wolfwood said:
The plaintiff is a lawyer representing himself. There is no way anyone could afford to keep this up if they were paying a lawyer unless you were Bill gates

From reading through all of this, that appears to be the Defense plan...wear the Plaintiff out with costs as they (Defense) have unlimited funds.

wolfwood · Aug 27, 2018

Jim just filed his brief

arguments in October

https://mlaus.org/wp-content/uploads/bp-attachments/7360/aug-24-brief-w-corrections.pdf

wolfwood · Aug 28, 2018

https://www.scribd.com/document/387237984/Maloney-v-Singas-Defense-Trial-Brief-2

Defense brief filed.

In cases such as Heller , McDonald , NYSRPA , and Jiminez where firearms and ammunition were involved, regulatory safeguards exist by way of weapons licensing or registration. No regulatory scheme is in place with respect to nunchaku, however. In the event this Court were to strike down Penal Law § 265.01 as it pertains to possession of nunchaku as being violative of the Second Amendment, there is no safeguard for the State to ensure that this weapon would be possessed by law abiding citizens.

the state is actually suggesting that there should be a registry for nun chucks if the ban is lifted

Blacksmith101 · Aug 28, 2018

wolfwood said:
https://www.scribd.com/document/387237984/Maloney-v-Singas-Defense-Trial-Brief-2

Defense brief filed.

In cases such as Heller , McDonald , NYSRPA , and Jiminez where firearms and ammunition were involved, regulatory safeguards exist by way of weapons licensing or registration. No regulatory scheme is in place with respect to nunchaku, however. In the event this Court were to strike down Penal Law § 265.01 as it pertains to possession of nunchaku as being violative of the Second Amendment, there is no safeguard for the State to ensure that this weapon would be possessed by law abiding citizens.

the state is actually suggesting that there should be a registry for nun chucks if the ban is lifted

Will that registry include linked sausages? :lol2:

wolfwood · Aug 28, 2018

Blacksmith101 said:
Will that registry include linked sausages?

I forgot the stated reason for the ban from the State's brief

New York has substantial, indeed compelling, governmental interests in public safety and crime prevention.” Kachalsky v County of Westchester , 701 F3d 81, 97 [2d Cir 2012], cert denied 569 US —. The legislative history of the 1974 amendment to Penal Law § 265.01 (See Exhibit A) cited to concern that nunchaku would be used by gangs and by individuals who would emulate the famed martial artist actor, Bruce Lee.

LeadSled1 · Aug 29, 2018

wolfwood said:
I forgot the stated reason for the ban from the State's brief

New York has substantial, indeed compelling, governmental interests in public safety and crime prevention.” Kachalsky v County of Westchester , 701 F3d 81, 97 [2d Cir 2012], cert denied 569 US —. The legislative history of the 1974 amendment to Penal Law § 265.01 (See Exhibit A) cited to concern that nunchaku would be used by gangs and by individuals who would emulate the famed martial artist actor, Bruce Lee.

I have a feeling >50% would take themselves out attempting such emulation.

wolfwood · Nov 9, 2018

ORDER: For the reasons stated in the attached, the Court sua sponte amends its July 23, 2017 order to make clear that Defendant Nassau County's burden is not an either-or test, but rather, Defendant must prove, at a minimum, that nunchakus are "not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes", and not simply that they are not in common use. In light of its Amended Order, the parties may submit supplemental letters, no longer than five pages, by October 22, 2018, addressing whether Defendant has met its burden that nunchakus are "not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes". The Court shall hold oral argument on December 5, 2018 at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom 4F North. Ordered by Judge Pamela K. Chen on 10/1/2018. (Hess, Alexandra) (Entered: 10/01/2018)

This is ridiculous. The court has ordered two trials. Now the Court is ordering more briefing because the court has yet to get the result it wants

https://www.scribd.com/document/392771456/Maloney-Defendant-Trial-Brief

wolfwood · Nov 9, 2018

this is the latest order from the court

motorcoachdoug · Nov 10, 2018

Wolfwood what do you think of the latest court order? Especially the last paragraph in the court order where it says, The defendant must show that the “typical possession” of nun chakus is for an unlawful purpose?

wolfwood · Nov 10, 2018

motorcoachdoug said:
Wolfwood what do you think of the latest court order? Especially the last paragraph in the court order where it says, The defendant must show that the “typical possession” of nun chakus is for an unlawful purpose?

The court is changing the standard that the State needs to show in order that nun chucks are not protected by the Second Amendment. After thinking about it the order isn't that bad. The judge just change her mind on what she wants to see.

The order basically says the State needs to prove people typically don't own nun chucks for legal purposes. That is going to be hard to prove.

Mike OTDP · Nov 11, 2018

Speaking as a 2nd degree black belt who works with nunchaku, they are far more useful in the dojo than on the street. And far more likely to be encountered in the dojo.

Peaceful John · Nov 11, 2018

wolfwood said:
The order basically says the State needs to prove people typically don't own nun chucks for legal purposes. That is going to be hard to prove.

I don't know what constitutes proof in a court of law, but would this be more than a matter of (a) getting sales figures from nun chuck distributors and (b) crime statistics regarding nun chucks and dividing the big number into the small?

wolfwood · Nov 11, 2018

Peaceful John said:
I don't know what constitutes proof in a court of law, but would this be more than a matter of (a) getting sales figures from nun chuck distributors and (b) crime statistics regarding nun chucks and dividing the big number into the small?

There is no test right now for how to actually prove this so your guess is as good as mine.

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

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Attachments

όυ φροντισ

Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Grumpy Old Man

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Attachments

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics