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

For us laymen, why is this good news?

For all I know, it could just be a delaying tactic. What about the suggested adjournment strikes you as being promising?
 
So what if there is an amnesty? An amnesty would be nothing more than a deadline extension. What happens after *that* date when people fail to register? Again, they would be charged with criminal possession of a firearm on the basis of failing to register that firearm.
Click to expand...
But what about an "eternal amnesty". I.e. if we catch you prior to registering you are in big trouble but, if at any time, you come clean, we'll wipe the slate on that. I am reminded of the need for each male of 18 years to register with selective service. To not do so shortly after their birthday they can face MAJOR penalties (in reality the rarely if ever do). However, if a 25 year old--6 years late!--decides to do it, he's good to go. His cut off date is 26. Then it's too late, he really missed the bus, but that is a very long amnesty indeed.
Canada passed a long gun registration in 1996? anyway, very few people registed their long guns. the deadline was extended, and very few registered their weapons,,,and extended etc..until Harper came along and campaigned to eliminate the long gun registration that was supposed to of cost $30 million, and had already cost $3 billion It was estimated that only 20% or so of the long guns in Canada had been ever registered, and no registered gun had been involved in a crime. Kind of like the Cobis program in NY eh?
Click to expand...
I strongly suspect a registration of firearms in NY will go the same way. Perhaps it would have had better luck before, but now that people will continually look to the failure of Canada, this registration must fight an uphill battle against a self-fulfilled prophecy, in a way. FWIW my personal feelings are the ammo registration will be a greater waste of time. Although it will by its nature enforce a very high rate of compliance, the huge amounts of data, the uselessness of them, and its ongoing costs as time goes on will threaten its staying alive, IMO.
 
MLeake,

It is certainly no guarantee of victory. However, this can be interpreted, tentatively, as good news since the State would not use a delaying tactic if there was a simple procedural basis on which the case could be thrown out. For example, if all of the necessary parties were not named, or the manner of service specified was improper, the NYSAG would not hesitate to dispose of this case instead of wasting valuable time and resources preparing a reply. Obviously, the arguments set forth in the complaint were meritorious and difficult enough that the AG didn't feel this would be a slam dunk if they went to bat too soon.
 
The New York State Attorney General has contacted Mr. Tresmond requesting an adjournment until the end of April.

This is (tentative) good news.
Click to expand...

Is there any chance of an injunction to prevent the 7 round limit going into effect April 15th?
 
Let me tell you Max if your team manages to get that done at least I am sure many detractors you have on whatever forum is full of that negativity will be inclined to be quiet.:D
 
So the AG wants more time to get HIS ducks in line. I don't see that as good news. I do agree that it may indicate he acknowledges the suit has merit, but if there's even a remote chance that Tresmond might agree to this, I fail to see how any good can come of it. Seems to me the AG should be asking the court for more time -- which would be admitting for the record that he's not prepared to defend the law that the State enacted. Asking the opposing attorney to agree to a delay is like handing the captive missionary a Zippo and asking him to light the fire under the pot the cannibals are going to cook him in.
 
He doesn't have much of a choice. The judge is going to approve the adjournment anyways; 99% of adjournment requests by any party are granted. So if he digs his heels in, it won't amount to anything other than trouble from everyone. However, they can't get an adjournment without notifying opposing counsel. At the very least, they didn't think they could dismiss the case out of hand, because you can be sure they would have done so if possible.
 
Uncle Willey said:
Can we get this thread "Stickied"?
Click to expand...

In a word... No.

With all the other cases we are watching, and some of them are every bit as important, nationally, as is this case, I would be doing a diservice to those in Illinois, Maryland, California, Washinton State and Colorado - just to name a few.

I understand how important this is to New Yorkers. I just can't discriminate against the other States and what their cases might mean.
 
I search for Peter in the list of current 2A cases and find four non related Peter instances, searching for WA gets inundated with results for "was". Is the case not in the current 2A cases thread?
 
Jim current WA bills are HB-1588 Universal Background checks and HB-1612 Registration of firearms offenders. Currently are in Judiciary Committee and moving.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top