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

Al, thanks for your support.

And thanks to everyone here who runs The Firing Line for giving us a forum to share the news of this case with all of the gun owners here on the web. You guys have a fantastic website.

We're going to be shutting down tonight. In the future, these Q&A periods will be announced in advance.
 
I am curious about one issue that was raised at the mtg. In addition to the current lawsuit, is there any possibility of a "criminal" case against the gov legislative leaders who "conspired" to violate the "civil rights" of NY citizens"?
Click to expand...
No chance. If the risk of criminal trial existed for anybody pushing a law that is ultimately found to be unconstitutional you'd find zero new laws, ever.
 
Not even the egregious ones? If a lawmaker were to submit a bill requiring all of a protected class be rounded up in internment camps in this day and age...?
 
Not even the egregious ones? If a lawmaker were to submit a bill requiring all of a protected class be rounded up in internment camps in this day and age...?
Click to expand...
Warrant less wire tapping, indefinite detention, citizen kill list, and torture are all "legal" according to the gov. Specific to your question, we have a good example to look to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_American_internment

So to answer your question: absolutely no lawmaker in this day and age would have to worry about a thing other than possibly not getting reelected to office, but given the hysteria of many in this "war on terror" I wouldn't even call it a career-ender.

If history teaches us anything it's that we don't evolve. In great part we are products of our environments. The horror we look upon others actions would have often been ours in the same scenario. The only thing that prevents it is a study of history and without it there's no prevention to recurrence of past ills.
 
There will be major press conferences tomorrow.

Something monumental is happening in Western New York. Check back tomorrow. Stay tuned.
 
Yes, certainly everyone on all sides of the issue will consider this a landmark moment, attorney and non attorney alike.

That's all I can say for now.
 
Well Spats, since Max is busy... what was so big about the Jury Trial thing? Other than it took the decision mostly out of the judge's hands giving them a better shot at victory?
 
JimDandy, the best I'll be able to give you on this one is a hunch. In reading my hunch, please bear in mind that I'm not licensed in NY, and have never practiced there. Accordingly, my best hunch will just be based on general principles of legal practice.

With that said, there are two kinds of "matters to be found" by a court. There are "matters of law," and "matters of fact."

Matters of law -- "That which is determined or ascertained through the use of statutes, rules, court decisions, and interpretations of legal principles." Source: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Matter+of+law

Matters of fact -- "That which is to be determined by the senses or by the testimony of witnesses who describe what they have perceived through the senses of sight, smell, touch, taste, and hearing."
Source: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Matter+of+fact

Ordinarily, these cases go to federal court, rather than state, and I would expect most of them to be tried to a bench. The reason for that is that the constitutionality of a law is a matter of law, not a matter of fact. In a bench trial, the judge is the finder of fact, as well as the finder of law. When the challenge is simply to the constitutionality of a statute, it's likely that many of the facts (such as "Plaintiff desires to carry a handgun for self-defense") will be undisputed.

In a jury trial, the jury becomes the finder of fact, and the judge is the finder of law. The jury decides whether "the plaintiff actually desires to carry a handgun for self-defense," for example. The judge finds the law and instructs the jury on same.

So, that's the long-winded way of saying: Other than it took [certain parts of] the decision mostly out of the judge's hands giving them a better shot at victory, nothing.

Edited to add: But that's pretty big.
 
Last edited:
From my father:

Article 78 cases are rarely, if ever, tried by a jury, but they are available when the facts are in dispute. The Petitioners argue that certain facts on which this case hinges are in dispute, and this proceeding is going to do something that hasn't been done before in NY - argue a 78 Firearms case on Constitutional grounds in front of a jury.

This case brings nationwide attention to a little known way of handling a case called Article 78 in New York. It's not your typical compliant.
 
JimDandy, I've been "brushing up" on NY civil law, as best a layman on the Interwebs can, and I agree with Max. The way in which this case was filed and a jury trial is requested, is really big news. To those that don't have a clue about NY civil procedure (including most of the guys living in NYS), this "Big News" wasn't very big at all.

I mean, come on! Jury trials happen every day, yes?

Well, not in this case. First, it being an Article 78 case means that it is being tried before a Justice of the NY Court of Appeals, their version of a State Supreme Court. Second, an adverse ruling would be appealed for reconsideration directly to the Full Court. My understanding is that unless the Justice at trial made a grievous error, reconsideration is denied (most cases). Next stop would be a petition of cert to the SCOTUS.

That is a Big Deal. (I'm sure that Max will correct me, if and where I'm wrong here)
 
Spats McGee said:
In a jury trial, the jury becomes the finder of fact, and the judge is the finder of law. The jury decides whether "the plaintiff actually desires to carry a handgun for self-defense," for example. The judge finds the law and instructs the jury on same.
Click to expand...
How curious. That's exactly what they tried to tell me the last time I was rejected as a prospective juror. During voir dire one of the opposing attorneys asked me if I would have any problems following the judge's instructions on what the law said or meant. Being under oath, I felt I had to be honest, so I said "Yes, if I don't agree with the judge's interpretation I would have a problem."

This caused all measure of consternation. They ultimately hauled in a judge they must have found stuffed in a broom closet upstairs, and she proceeded to ask me that same question. When I gave her the same answer, she lectured me on my inadequate understanding of how the court system works, and told me to go home and do some homework.

So I went home and looked up Georgia v. Brailsford, 3 U.S. 1 (1794), in which case Chief Justice John Jay stated that, "The jury has the right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy." I wrote to her honor with this citation (which has never been reversed by the SCOTUS), and she has never acknowledged my letter.
 
Isn't this similar to Jury Nullification? Jury Nullification has been an important element in achieving some measure of justice in the face of unjust laws ? In the years leading up to the Civil War, people who were charged with participation in the underground railroad were often acquitted at trial, even when the facts clearly pointed towards guilt. Northern white juries felt the law itself to be unjust. In general, most judges hate the concept of Jury Nullification, but hey, TFB. An acquittal is pretty much a done deal, and a jury has the final say.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top