Dywinski v. State Of New York (SAFE Act Challenge)

Willie? Have you looked to see how many states require a shotgun for deer hunting?

Now add in all the skeet/clay shooters... It's in there.
 
I hope you all win this case, and reversal on those 10 rounds, so you can use 15 standard rounds magazine in handguns.
 
Al: as to shotguns required to hunt deer...add places like WA where you can use a rifle to hunt deer in MOST of the state,,,

but west of I 5 in King, Snohomish, and Skagit Co. you must use a shotgun, as well as on the Ilands in Puget Sound.
 
^^^

Bear in mind that this is about NEW YORK, and the rights of those residing there.

Are there any shotgun-only counties in NY for deer?

It's pretty well assumed that they are the right thing for pheasants everyplace.... :rolleyes:


Willie

.
 
According to Tresmond and his team, the SAFE Act's registration registration requirement violates the precedent set forth in Haynes v. United States. This was a landslide 7-1 decision from the liberal 1968 Supreme Court, which held that registration requirements are virtually unenforceable for rifles that are already owned by violate the Fifth Amendment's protection against self incrimination.
Click to expand...

So what happens when New York adopts the same language change upheld in U.S. vs. Freed, 401 U. S. 601?
 
Guys, most of NY required shotguns for deer hunting until a few years ago.... some counties STILL do!

And, it is undeniable that the 870 and 1100/1187 are the most popular shotguns in use for the purpose.
 
Last edited:
^^^ Brian, that's what I had remembered, being from NJ at the time, where shotguns were (and are) all we could use, and having hunted just 12 miles south of the NY line in PA, where it was a "big deal" that we could use rifles and not shotguns like our unfortunate neighbors just north and back home. It's why we hunted in PA (Bradford County, just south of Elmira).

Thanks for confirming my memory.

There are shotgun only counties in NY to this day.

Best,

Willie

.
 
Not sure if this is the right thread, but I didn't see this posted anywhere when I looked an hour ago though I didn't look too hard. It seems the Saratoga County Deputy Sheriff's Police Benevolent Association has weighted in on the SAFE Act, and their ticked. They bring up some very good points on how the law was enacted outside of normal procedures for introducing a law and most likely illegally. Seems like this would be a good way to get the law thrown out.

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B56MnMGOf6wrSzBuM0V3UjAtN2M/edit
 
It's truly a sad day when Mr. Tresmond and his skilled team of attorneys are forced to deal with threats of violence and harm from those people whose rights these attorneys are trying to protect. :(

This comes just a few short days before Mr. Tresmond makes a formal announcement of his co-counsel, the owner of another high powered and well resourced law firm in the Buffalo region.
 
Case #77. Dywinski, Richard v. State Of New York: Case #000290/2013, filed on 01-29-2013 in the Erie Civil Supreme Court of New York. James D. Tresmond, Attorney for the Plaintiff. This is a NY State lawsuit that seeks to overturn certain portions of the recently enacted NY SAFE Act.

The above was just added to the "List of Cases." This will be the primary thread to discuss this case.
 
This NY law still has not gone into effect correct? Has enforcement been postponed past the initial date of April or whatever, or are they planning to drop the hammer on gun owners immeditealy?
 
Question re: post 50

What threats? Maxb49 alluded to threats against the legal team, but I saw no links or references to any threats made.

Did I miss something? Or did Maxb49 forget a link?
 
Below is the portion of the law that controls when each section goes into effect. The entire document can be found here.



S 58. This act shall take effect immediately; provided, however, that:
52 a. Sections one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten,
53 eleven, twelve, thirteen, fourteen, fifteen, sixteen, seventeen, eigh-
54 teen, nineteen, twenty, twenty-one, twenty-two, twenty-three, twenty-
55 four, twenty-five, twenty-six, twenty-six-a, twenty-seven, twenty-eight,
56 twenty-nine, thirty, thirty-one, thirty-two, thirty-three, thirty-four,
S. 2230 39 A. 2388

1 thirty-five, thirty-six, thirty-nine, forty, forty-one, forty-one-a,
2 forty-one-b, forty-two, forty-three, forty-five, forty-six, forty-six-a,
3 forty-seven, fifty-one, fifty-two, fifty-three, fifty-four, fifty-five,
4 and fifty-six of this act shall take effect on the sixtieth day after it
5 shall have become a law;
6 b. The amendments to subdivision 23 of section 265.00 of the penal law
7 made by section thirty-eight of this act shall take effect on the nine-
8 tieth day after this act shall have become a law, except that the amend-
9 ments made to paragraph (a) of subdivision 23 shall take effect imme-
10 diately;
11 c. The amendments to subdivision 1, paragraph (a) of subdivision 3,
12 and subdivisions 4, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, and 16-b of section 400.00 of the
13 penal law made by section forty-eight of this act shall take effect one
14 year after this act shall have become a law;
15 d. The amendments to subdivision 16-a of section 400.00 of the penal
16 law made by section forty-eight of this act shall take effect on the
17 ninetieth day after this act shall have become a law;
18 e. The amendments to sections 400.02 and 400.03 of the penal law made
19 by sections forty-nine and fifty of this act shall take effect one year
20 after it shall have become a law; and
21 f. The amendments to subdivision (b) of section 9.47 and sections 9.48
22 and 9.60 of the mental hygiene law made by sections twenty-one, twenty-
23 two and twenty-three of this act shall not affect the expiration and
24 repeal of such paragraph and sections and shall be deemed repealed ther-
25 ewith.
 
hermannr said:
Some of it goes into effect after april, some after 1 year.
Click to expand...
camper4lyfe said:
Some portions went into effect immediately, like being unable to buy or sell "AW's"
Click to expand...
What was the definitive effective date for the restrictions on so-called "Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Devices" (LCAFDs)?

I'm intrigued that LCAFDs are the main focus of the lawsuit; in several NY-related threads, I've theorized that the (IMHO) very broad language used in the definition of a LCAFD could ensnare numerous firearms and accessories that are beyond the publicly-promoted scope of the law. I feel vindicated because this legal team agrees with me. ;)
 
IIRC, the magazine ban is three fold.

1)Magazines may not be loaded over 7 rounds, effective immediately.

2)Magazines over 10 round capacity must be sold out of state or disposed of within one year.

3)Magazines between 7 and 10 rounds can be brought into the state until April 2013 and can be kept/used after that date but no more may be brought in and they must be loaded to 7 rounds only.

Yeah, because criminals intent on shooting a room full of people will be careful not to be charged with loading too many rounds in a magazine.:rolleyes:
 
Carguychris:

Thank you for bringing up the LCAFD. The legal team thought that the most useful way to attack the bill would be to show that the LCAFD (not the assault weapon ban) amendments would outlaw guns, particularly the 870 - a popular firearm whose production employs over a thousand New Yorkers - that are commonly owned and protected under the Heller doctrine.

A lot of people have been calling the office asking why their shotgun is outlawed. If you read the actual text of the NY SAFE Act, any magazine that holds more than 10 rounds, or can easily be modified to hold more than 10 rounds, classifies as a LCAFD and must be surrendered/sold. First of all, every shotgun can be easily modified, by the average person, to hold more than ten rounds with a simple magazine extension tube. Secondly, most pump action shotguns can hold more than seven 1 3/4" shells, and many of them can hold 12+. If shotguns are protected, and we certainly believe they are, the SAFE Act's LCAFD law is unconstitutionally overbroad, period, end of case.

The legal team appears to have been viruently attacked on the LIFirearms message board, perhaps someone from that site would like to come over this way for a discussion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top