Rockland County Judge Victor Alfieri violates citizens rights!

Status
Not open for further replies.
P

PATH

Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2002
Messages
2,844
Location
Rockland, New York
A local Rockland County man has been denied the right to purchase and own a handgun because a Judge Victor Alfieri Jr. has decided on his own to make his own laws! Judges, he feels, should limit the number of firearms we own!

The original letter sent by this judge.
Alfieri1.jpg

A follow up letter sent by the judge telling the firearms owner to go ahead and challenge him!
alfieri2.jpg

You may contact the Judge by mail: Honorable Victor J. Alfieri, Rockland County Court House, 1 South Main Street, New City NY 10956
 
Last edited:
I have a feeling that this judge is going to get slapped down, hard. Maybe not for awhile, at least not until this case hits an appeals court. But If the guy has a lawyer with any skill at all, He'll be eating his words of "necessity" and "justified."
 
This POS judge needs to be thrown in jail. I must have missed the part where judges are Constitutionally allowed to inject personal opinion into a person's fundamental rights......:cuss: :barf:

This sub-human needs to be thrown out of the court and disbarred. Then, on to Bubba.....
 
I can't wait for the day when I own over 150 handguns.

If only so I can have a tiff with the local judge.
 
Personally I feel the judge has far exceeded his use of 1st Amendment rights. No one with good intentions would involve themselves in so many other peoples affairs. We need limit his! He should only be able to send out 1 letter a month. :)
 
And the agenda comes to the surface.

Herein lies the problem with any sort of permit, application, request, etc. to own, purchase or use a firearm. It is the nature of government to assume more and more power to itself. How long before this man hears "150 handguns is too many, we'll stop by today to take them." ?
 
I had a local police sergeant tell me that, "...pistols aren't Constitutionally protected...just long guns are". Let that steep in your teacup for a bit.

:neener:

In the end, the judge will be overruled. It seems to me that we are entering a new era of Constitutional violations. The left has lost its mind; the right has lost its nerve, and the lunatics are coming out of the woodwork.

:D

I love sarcasm.

Doc2005
 
This POS judge needs to be thrown in jail. I must have missed the part where judges are Constitutionally allowed to inject personal opinion into a person's fundamental rights......
Click to expand...

Given that the process is a "may issue" process that leaves issuance up to the decision of the judge, I believe the judge is operating withinthe confines of the law within New York, a law that has been challenged unsuccessfully. So he is acting within the constraints of the Constitution to perform his job.

I think it sucks, but I don't believe he acted outside of the law.
 
A quick read of the 2A includes the words "keep" and "bear" along with the phrase "shall not be infringed". Anything contrary to that, pretty much every firearm law since, is a violation of the Constitution. We, however, have become so innoculated to violations of our rights (not just gun rights) that we explain it away.
 
Doc2005
In the end, the judge will be overruled. It seems to me that we are entering a new era of Constitutional violations. The left has lost its mind; the right has lost its nerve, and the lunatics are coming out of the woodwork.
Click to expand...
I hope he is overruled, as for the rest of your statement. Right On.
 
After the $54,000,000 pants I am sure judges feel like they can pretty much do anything they want.
Click to expand...

You may be delighted to learn that the case came to trial... :uhoh:

And the judge lost... ;) :D :D :D
 
I hope the guy get's his gun, but with the ways the laws are on the book here in NY, I can see where the judge has a leg to stand on. It lies mainly in fault with the requirement to have a License to own a handgun. They divide it into categories here, target, hunting, premise buisiness etc, etc. And in the application you have to show intent of use and probable location of use for the firearm. If all he had was a target/hunting license, well yeah, you're going to be hard pressed to sell it to a judge or anyone else that you have intent to use all 150 of them each year. Even if you could, which I'm not debating, most other people will scoff at it.

I'd blame the laws first, then the judge. Judges, I always thought, were supposed to be impartial, readers of the black and white. Lately, I'm seeing them more as people who think they're the re-incarnation of King George and above everyone else.
 
Thus another great example for not allowing licensing for any weapon related law. This just proves that all licensing leads to denial and confiscation.

Jefferson
 
While I am glad to hear that the judge eventually lost this case, this kind of decision making on the judicial bench concerns me greatly.

said judge should be flipping burgers or stocking walmart shevles as a consequence of this kind of arrogance regarding the scope of individual rights. What else has he done that has not been caught? There should be an audit of all the cases he has reviewed at the minimum.

For although his firearm ruling is a travesty and an insult, it is also probably the tip of the iceberg.
 
While I am glad to hear that the judge eventually lost this case, this kind of decision making on the judicial bench concerns me greatly.
Click to expand...

I agree, but the outcome may discourage some other judges, and I hope the respondent in the "pants case" countersues that judge into the ground.

The actions of the judge that is the center of this thread is the reason I would never live in New York. I even go to some lengths so that I won't have to visit the place! Thankfully in Arizona judges don't have the authority to do what he did, and any judge that tried wouldn't survive the next election.

Given the laws and political structure in New York, I doubt that the gun owner will get anywhere, but that's something his local lawyer should deside.
 
If memory serves me, and sometimes I wonder if it does :scrutiny: , "gun-control" started in New York. Little shock that yet one more fool judge feels he is omnipotent.

When I was a high school principal, a group of students were sitting in a court session to see some real-life decision-making. :) The defendent was trying to assert his constitutional rights of free expression to which the judge retorted,

"You don't have any Constitutional rights in this court! This is MY court and I do what I choose!"

:rolleyes:
 
jselvy said:
Thus another great example for not allowing licensing for any weapon related law. This just proves that all licensing leads to denial and confiscation.
Click to expand...
Yeah, my favorite line is the "I do not know of any license which should permit him to have the number of weapons which he owns." The government take is: "If we don't make a license for it, you can't do it!" Talk about individuals getting lost in the machine...
 
Thus another great example for not allowing licensing for any weapon related law. This just proves that all licensing leads to denial and confiscation.
Click to expand...

You are jumping to unsubstantiated conclusions. Singular examples do not prove anything when speaking of broad spectrum law. More over, since nothing was confiscated, it can't prove something that didn't happen.

Licensing itself does not lead to denial, by "may issue" licensing can. Actually, any laws on ownership can lead to some form of denial, not just licensing.
 
You are jumping to unsubstantiated conclusions. Singular examples do not prove anything when speaking of broad spectrum law. More over, since nothing was confiscated, it can't prove something that didn't happen.

Licensing itself does not lead to denial, by "may issue" licensing can. Actually, any laws on ownership can lead to some form of denial, not just licensing.
Click to expand...


Tell that to the Brits, Scots, Aussies, Canucks, WW2 Germans, Russians and ad infinatum.



Does anyone think that maybe, just maybe, the government really does not have our best interests at heart??

Ya know, it's not unpatriotic to say"Gee, you are not following the Constitution. Get it back on track or else".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

C
  • Locked
"May Not Carry Concealed"
2
Replies
41
Views
3K
mgkdrgn
M
J
  • Locked
More GA Judges Carrying Guns
Replies
7
Views
661
Fletchette
F
T
  • Locked
Judge denies state's effort to move gun suit to Hennepin Co.
Replies
4
Views
538
LoneStranger
L
B
  • Locked
Judge rules against Demar(Illinois)
Replies
1
Views
455
Standing Wolf
S
E
  • Locked
McCain Asserts He WILL Sign National Right-To-Carry Legislation!
2
Replies
26
Views
1K
takhtakaal
T
Back
Top