Second Amendment Foundation Sue NY


PDA






lobo9er
January 15, 2013, 10:14 PM
Any chance the Second Amendment Foundation will sue NY? If this already being discussed I apologize.

If you enjoyed reading about "Second Amendment Foundation Sue NY" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
grahluk
January 16, 2013, 07:15 PM
If this is being discussed or considered please direct me there. I am a licensed NYC pistol owner. My P226 with NYC compliant 10rd magazines is now an assault weapon. I think my line in the sand has just been crossed. I've never so much as had a jaywalking ticket in my life but I am willing to join a peaceful, organized, and well thought out course of legal action and civil disobedience. I sincerely hope Sig, MecGar nor any of the other gun manufacturers produce a NY compliant 7rd magazine. If they do not and my 10rd ones become illegal in a year I will have standing to challenge this law as a constructive ban.

heyjoe
January 16, 2013, 09:59 PM
the NRA, several other national pro second amendment type groups and several state and local groups are or will be meeting with high powered lawyers and firms in the present and/or near future to review the law with the aim of challenging it in federal court.

There are many here who are chomping on the bit to contribute to this cause. it should be well funded.

Upstater
January 16, 2013, 10:06 PM
^^^yeah you can bet your life I'll contribute to this cause. I personally wrote letters until my fingers bled -didn't make a dinker's damn worth of difference! We were totally outnumbered on this one and I for one is damn mad about it!

onegtalon
January 16, 2013, 10:10 PM
I'll donate and I don't live in NY. We need to stand together as a nation.


Sent from my iPhone
OneGtalon

Ohio Gun Guy
January 16, 2013, 10:11 PM
They could "Pass the Hat" and really do this..... May write a suggestion...


Going to see if there is a way now.

abajaj11
January 16, 2013, 10:23 PM
I joined SAF (5 year membership), GOA and upgraded my NRA membership to life over the last month. I also paid for 4 other folks to join NRA for their first year membership.
Everyone else, please consider joining all these organizations...this battle has just begun....
:)

lobo9er
January 16, 2013, 10:34 PM
grahluk I feel your pain. under the new law ruger 10/22's are now assault weapons.

Old Fuff
January 16, 2013, 10:36 PM
Hopefully everyone understands that the firearms industry (SHOT) Show is at this moment being conducted in Las Vegas, NV. In effect, all of the principal players in the industry are together under one very big roof where they can conduct face-to-face meetings and discussions. It is safe to say this activity is going on, some in public, some in private. In any case plans will be made, and legal options reviewed. It is unlikely that the situation in New York will be ignored. Keep in mind that the fastest move is not always the best one.

Meanwhile, back in Washington there is no indication that the House of Representatives is in any hurry to move to enact the president's proposals.

Tom488
January 16, 2013, 10:57 PM
under the new law ruger 10/22's are now assault weapons
No, they're not. S.2230 redefines an assault weapon to be:

A semi-automatic rifle that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least one of the following features:

- A folding or telescoping stock
- A pistol grip that protrudes conspiculously beneath the action of the weapon
- A thumbhole stock
- A second handgrip or a protruding grip that can be held by the non-trigger hand
- A bayonet mount
- A flash suppressor, muzzle brake, muzzle compensator, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate same
- A grenade launcher

Yosemite Sam
January 16, 2013, 11:02 PM
SAF is well worth joining. At any time, they have 20-30 lawsuits going. The NRA may well be the 800 lb gorilla, but the SAF really impressed me with how focused they are on lawsuits (and their track record.) Last I checked, 1 year membership is $15, tax-deductible. Heck, their life membership is only $150.

Kiln
January 17, 2013, 04:11 AM
Why go from 10 to 7 rounds? Because almost no modern guns use 7 round magazines and most previously compliant guns were equipped with 10 round mags. You can effectively create a blanket ban (including previously legal guns) on most pistols and rifles with this simple move from 10 to 7 rounds.

In places like NY the ban has been in place that allowed 10 round magazines for years. Why allow the guns already there to remain legal? That is why the 7 round capacity limit makes sense to the overlords in New York. They want ALL firearms outlawed, that is the result that they hope for.

Why would they care about the average citizen's right to defend him/herself? They've got armed guards, screw the people out there who don't.

This ban is not constitutionally legal because you can't ban anything which has been previously bought by someone. Hopefully somebody challenges this thing and gets it destroyed before tons of New Yorkers become criminals for things they bought legally and jumped through hoops to get in anti-gun NY.

pseudonymity
January 17, 2013, 02:56 PM
If this is being discussed or considered please direct me there. I am a licensed NYC pistol owner. My P226 with NYC compliant 10rd magazines is now an assault weapon. I think my line in the sand has just been crossed. I've never so much as had a jaywalking ticket in my life but I am willing to join a peaceful, organized, and well thought out course of legal action and civil disobedience. I sincerely hope Sig, MecGar nor any of the other gun manufacturers produce a NY compliant 7rd magazine. If they do not and my 10rd ones become illegal in a year I will have standing to challenge this law as a constructive ban.

Your Sig is not an AW, and if you have the 10 round mags now you are good to go for the next 60 days. After 60 days, you can not load more than 7 rounds in the mag unless you are at the range. You do not have to get rid of any mags unless they are 10+ rounds.

klyph
January 17, 2013, 03:24 PM
Yes, you see there's nothing to worry about. Just be very diligent when loading your magazines and don't put that 8th bullet in there or you'll lose your 2nd amendment rights. Totally reasonable.

Stargazer65
January 17, 2013, 03:37 PM
When you only have seven or less, you're just a mild mannered citizen. Put that 8th round in and it will turn you into a crazed maniac. We've all seen it happen.

grahluk
January 17, 2013, 06:26 PM
I don't know if that is correct. From what can be known of the new law that provision of loading magazines with only 7 rounds is an interim measure for a year. It was clearly stated that all magazines that can accept more than 7 rounds must be sold out of state within one year. Either way beyond it's onerous objective it's very sketchy policy. A LEO friend is pissed because it places police here in a bad spot regarding enforcement. The law is showing it's shoddiness as a result of it's haste in consideration and passage. They just didn't think it through. Even by their measures it's poorly done.

ed_nyc
January 17, 2013, 06:59 PM
This ban is not constitutionally legal because you can't ban anything which has been previously bought by someone.

This statement doesn't really make sense... Of course they can, and lawmakers do it all the time. In fact, I'd be surprised if you could name a single example of banning something where people hadn't already bought them. If nobody has them, what's the sense in banning them?

I could see a number of challenges to the law, but it won't be easy under a simple 2nd Amendment challenge. The fact is that NYC has had even stricter rules for years, and people have tried (and failed) to get those struck down.

I also don't think challenging it as an unconstitutional "taking" will work. The Supreme Court doesn't put a lot of weight into the protection of personal property (as opposed to real estate). I found a pretty good quote on that point:
“n the case of personal property, by reason of the State’s traditionally high degree of control over commercial dealings, [a property owner] ought to be aware of the possibility that the new regulation might even render his property economically worthless (at least if the property’s only economically productive use is sale or manufacture for sale). * * *." 505 U.S. at 1027-28.

That seems pretty on-point, and there would need to be a [i]very compelling argument for high-capacity magazines are different to overcome it. Plus, since they're giving people a year to sell off their high-capacity magazines out of state, they'll be able to argue that they didn't ruin the economic value of the magazines at all.

Unfortunately, the ridiculous "message of necessity" used to ram it through the legislature isn't even subject to judicial review. I'm afraid that, constitutionally, we're probably stuck with the whole thing.

(If it matters, I'm a lawyer.)

Yosemite Sam
January 17, 2013, 10:15 PM
I think NY politicians just really care about our magazine springs. Prevent spring abuse by loading less rounds! Springs are people too.

JohnBT
January 17, 2013, 11:25 PM
"Any chance the Second Amendment Foundation will sue NY?"

Unless they're located in NY I don't think they have legal standing to sue. It's like me trying to sue NY - I live in VA, how have I been harmed by what they've done?

heyjoe
January 17, 2013, 11:32 PM
grahluk wrote " I don't know if that is correct. From what can be known of the new law that provision of loading magazines with only 7 rounds is an interim measure for a year. It was clearly stated that all magazines that can accept more than 7 rounds must be sold out of state within one year."

that one year provision only applies to magazines over ten rounds that were purchased pre ban 1994.
if you bought your ten round magazine before that section of the law takes effect in 60 days, maybe 90 days i cant remember off the top of my head you can keep it. not all of the law takes effect at the same time.

how anyone will be able to tell if you bought the ten round magazine before or after the cut off date is beyond me.

Birch Knoll
January 17, 2013, 11:33 PM
Unless they're located in NY I don't think they have legal standing to sue.

SAF wouldn't bring suit on their own behalf, but on behalf of some party that does have standing. They provide the legal talent and the bankroll.

Jim K
January 17, 2013, 11:51 PM
And for the most part, the president's vaunted executive orders are meaningless. The mental health initiative, reported on the internet as requiring doctors to question patients on guns and report gun owners to the police really is nothing more than a statement of fact that no federal law prohibits doctors from askng a patient about guns.

Others merely order federal agencies to do what they already do or spend money on yet more studies. A potential problem with "redistribution" of funds, but not a huge one. One possible conflict I see is an order to CDC to conduct studies on gun control, which IIRC has been specifically prohibited in appropriations bills. That seems a minor point, but it could blow up big if it is as reported.

Jim

JohnBT
January 18, 2013, 10:32 AM
"SAF wouldn't bring suit on their own behalf"

Wasn't that what I said? Maybe not.

boom boom
January 18, 2013, 12:07 PM
For your reading enjoyment, a very recent decision that is appropriate,, dating from Nov. 27th, 2012, where the Second Circuit refused a challenge to NY State's permit laws but might give basis to challenge the new law.

Money quote,
11 . . ."We have held that “heightened scrutiny is triggered
12 only by those restrictions that (like the complete
13 prohibition on handguns struck down in Heller) operate as a
14 substantial burden on the ability of law-abiding citizens to
15 possess and use a firearm for self-defense (or for other
16 lawful purposes).”
17 166 (2d Cir. 2012).
citing United States v. Decastro, 682 F.3d 160,166 (2d Cir. 2012).

This is from Kachalsky et al. v. Cty. of Westchester et al. 11-3642 at page 27 (2nd Circuit, Nov. 27, 2012). Subsequent pages indicate that regulations about carrying outside of the home will be treated differently than defense within the home regarding the amount of burden assessed by the court.

Since heightened scrutiny applies in the 2nd Circuit according to their understanding of Heller and MacDonald, then the question regarding 7 round magazine requirement would be whether it unlawfully burdens the core of fundamental freedom protections which the 2nd Circuit believes consists of defense of home. What I would suggest to any challenger of the law is to apply this case and demonstrate a need for a magazine of 7 or greater in the context of home defense. This seems to be the weakest point in the NY law--empirical evidence with home defense incidents that demonstrated the need for more firepower. The general non-availability of 7 round NY compliant magazines might also be viewed as a substantial burden. The obvious riposte by govt. will be that magazines could be readily changed--then you will need to demonstrate that the awkward, the disabled, the elderly, etc. might not be able to do so.

If the folks on the THR really want to help, perhaps a start would be by providing documentary evidence (media, books, police reports, personal experiences that can be documented, etc.) from local home defense incidents that required multiple shots beyond 7 to make the invasion stop. Multiple attacker home invasions might be especially important to document this fact that 7 rounds is unreasonable. Also document the relatively short time span that many of these incidents occur within that could prevent a magazine change. Incidents in NY and NE are especially important with sympathetic victims of violent home assaults. Incidents between rival gangs is probably not the best sort of incident to document the need for a greater number of rounds.

wojownik
January 18, 2013, 03:38 PM
Would there even be need to prove the "need" for magazines with a capacity of greater than 7 rounds?

That is, following the logic of Heller and the Decastro case cited above, couldn't an argument be made that limiting magazines to 7 rounds - and requiring disposal of any mags with a capacity greater than that = would in reality make it "impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense" and would be unconstitutional?

So, if I have a lawfully possessed Sig 229 in MA or NY, and cannot obtain new or replacement magazines limited to 7 rounds (they only are available in 10 and 13, and 15 round versions), then doesn't this law effectively disarm me, and prevent me from defending my self and my family? Would that argument be cogent enough?

Or would the counter be too easy ... let the market come in and sell lesser capacity mags (that do not yet exist today). So, as long as no manufacturer comes trouncing in with 7 round mags ....

boom boom
January 18, 2013, 04:28 PM
I get what you are saying wojownik. What I learned from dealing with the courts is to give them multiple avenues to get you what you desire. Thus, I would agree that a seven round magazine that does not exist is a hardship, furthermore, I would argue the grandfather clause that permits ten round magazines but limits the number of bullets to seven is an irrational policy. However, if you can establish the fact pattern in district court that documents an actual negative effect such as someone running out of bullets and resulting in subsequent harm or the failure of felons to be stopped with multiple shots through expert witnesses, then it also becomes a factor that unduly burdens self defense. Been checking up on literature documentation, Mas Ayoob has documented some of this in his various reports as well as Jim Cirillo. Cirillo's partner in the Stakeout Squad, Bill Allard talks about one robbery suspect that had 27 holes, entry and exit, and was still trying talk. Cirillo talks about the myth of the one shot stop especially dealing with junkies on heroin. During the days of six shooters, Cirillo took as many as four handguns, not counting long guns to stakeouts. Ayoob popularized Cirillo's shooting one gun empty and then pulling a second gun as the New York reload. If multiple shots are necessary for one person, then what about two, three or four assailants. Documented case histories would be nice to have to introduce into court.

If you enjoyed reading about "Second Amendment Foundation Sue NY" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!