First SAFE Act arrest made; man sells assault weapons to cop

Mar 15, 2013 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: democratandchronicle.com

A Chautauqua County man who sold two assault weapons to an undercover police investigator has become the state's first arrest for a violation of the NY SAFE Act.

Comments
21 - 40 of 74 Comments Last updated Jun 27, 2013
White Virus

Rochester, NY

#28 Mar 16, 2013
The_ Patriot_USA wrote:
<quoted text>No maybe you just need to clean your ears out. If NYS made this law and expect to enforce it legally. They have to show that the law doesn't violate any other legal statute or the constitution. The burden is on the state to answer the lawsuit claim. Not just cuomo's attornies saying we made the law because of the incident in West Webster or Sandy Hook. There are legal requirements the state needs to meet.
Look at that, you took what I said reworded it and made it your own.
Nice work.

“STOP PLAYING THE RACE CARD”

Since: May 11

Location hidden

#29 Mar 16, 2013
White Virus wrote:
<quoted text>
Look at that, you took what I said reworded it and made it your own.
Nice work.
a substantial reason put forth in good faith that is not unreasonable, arbitrary, or irrational and that is sufficient to create an excuse for an act under the law

REALLY, I didn't rewrite anything you wrote or said. I am giving you the legal way things are done. You obviously think Uncle Cuomo just has to say "We made this law because of the West Webster incident and Sandy Hook, and we are trying to protect our citizens". Sorry doesn't work that way, nor is it that easy. The state has made a law which MUST be "LEGAL", "ENFORCEABLE" and constitutional in this case.

Notice Substantial reason = They can give all the reasons they want, if they can't show that it's legal then it gets stricken, in other words the burden of proof is on the state. Seeing that the U.S. Constitution is a bunch of laws the state MUST prove that it is constitutional. That means it MUST conform to the proper amendment, this case, the 2nd amendment.

“STOP PLAYING THE RACE CARD”

Since: May 11

Location hidden

#30 Mar 16, 2013
By the way, where are the other cases you mentioned, you said several, so far you have only produced 1
White Virus

Rochester, NY

#32 Mar 17, 2013
The_ Patriot_USA wrote:
<quoted text>a substantial reason put forth in good faith that is not unreasonable, arbitrary, or irrational and that is sufficient to create an excuse for an act under the law

REALLY, I didn't rewrite anything you wrote or said. I am giving you the legal way things are done. You obviously think Uncle Cuomo just has to say "We made this law because of the West Webster incident and Sandy Hook, and we are trying to protect our citizens". Sorry doesn't work that way, nor is it that easy. The state has made a law which MUST be "LEGAL", "ENFORCEABLE" and constitutional in this case.

Notice Substantial reason = They can give all the reasons they want, if they can't show that it's legal then it gets stricken, in other words the burden of proof is on the state. Seeing that the U.S. Constitution is a bunch of laws the state MUST prove that it is constitutional. That means it MUST conform to the proper amendment, this case, the 2nd amendment.
Look, all you did was expand on my post. Plain and simple the State has to demonstrate sound judgement is behind the law and that it doesn't violate the Constitution. Two relatively easy tasks to accomplish for Cuomo's Manhattan lawyers arguing against a half-assed political hack DWI lawyer from Hamburg.

“STOP PLAYING THE RACE CARD”

Since: May 11

Location hidden

#33 Mar 17, 2013
White Virus wrote:
<quoted text>
Look, all you did was expand on my post. Plain and simple the State has to demonstrate sound judgement is behind the law and that it doesn't violate the Constitution. Two relatively easy tasks to accomplish for Cuomo's Manhattan lawyers arguing against a half-assed political hack DWI lawyer from Hamburg.
Wrong wing nut......If you have to give reasons to show that something is constitutional you are proving that you followed rules, regulations and laws. Learn the definition of good cause because it's not just sound reasoning. There is a constitutional component to the SAFE ACT and they have to prove it's legal. Your sound judgement is only to explaining why they made the law, they still need to prove it's lawful.
White Virus

Rochester, NY

#34 Mar 17, 2013
The_ Patriot_USA wrote:
Your sound judgement is only to explaining why they made the law, they still need to prove it's lawful.
Duh! I've said that in every post tardboy! You're like on of those birds that repeats what it hears. Max and his Dad are going to look like clowns after the AG's finish with their brief in court.
If the NRA and the other glory hound shysters, like clowns from Hamburg,couldn't get the Federal and the California bans repealed what makes you think they are going to be anymore successful in New York? You still believe in Santa Clause and the Tooth Fairy?

“STOP PLAYING THE RACE CARD”

Since: May 11

Location hidden

#35 Mar 17, 2013
no you didn't dummy, you said they don't have to prove anything, they do, get your flip stories straight you idiot.
White Virus

Rochester, NY

#36 Mar 17, 2013
The_ Patriot_USA wrote:
no you didn't dummy, you said they don't have to prove anything, they do, get your flip stories straight you idiot.
Nimrod is reading comprehension a problem for you?
White Virus wrote:
<quoted text>Incorrect, the State has to show "good cause" which is not proof or evidence.
Now that's what I said, either your confused or simply don't understand what your reading.

“STOP PLAYING THE RACE CARD”

Since: May 11

Location hidden

#37 Mar 18, 2013
White Virus wrote:
<quoted text>
Nimrod is reading comprehension a problem for you?
<quoted text>
Now that's what I said, either your confused or simply don't understand what your reading.
Im not confused you're just an idiot. And flip flop like a pancake, its what you do

So you think the whole safe act will stand ?

“STOP PLAYING THE RACE CARD”

Since: May 11

Location hidden

#38 Mar 18, 2013
This is what I wrote:
The_ Patriot_USA wrote:
<quoted text>No injunction yet, Cuomo has until April 29th to prove that the SAFE ACT is constitutional. Cuomo has a BIG mountain climb to prove this one.

Then you write this:

Incorrect, the State has to show "good cause" which is not proof or evidence.
Case law will support the "Safe Act" and the States right to regulate how, where, when and what types of firearms it's citizens may own and possess. If you haven't been paying attention, several of the Safe Act suits have all ready been thrown out.

Which means you brain fart that you are saying that the state doesn't have to prove their case and show proof. You're wrong, the burden of proof is on the state to prove the SAFE ACT is constitutional.

"Burden of proof can define the duty placed upon a party to prove or disprove a disputed fact"

I'm done giving you free legal advice, next time it will be $ 250 an hour.

“STOP PLAYING THE RACE CARD”

Since: May 11

Location hidden

#40 Mar 18, 2013
Grady Stiles wrote:
I predict it will get enjoined. Too many different constitutional violations.
I think you are correct. Just have to wait and see the arguments from both sides. Then the decision.

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#41 Mar 18, 2013
The_ Patriot_USA wrote:
<quoted text>
I think you are correct. Just have to wait and see the arguments from both sides. Then the decision.
Calling yourself a "patriot" doesn't mean much. The fact you are on this forum trying to debate and yelling THEY CAN"T TAKE MY GUNS AWAY proves to many your limit value.

This great country needs the citizens to aid our legislators and not threaten them when something becomes unpopular to a chosen few.

Therefore, your value is limited and discredited due to your bias. If you served I thank you, however, becoming a Veteran doesn't grant you anything above the average citizen.

Since: Mar 11

Location hidden

#42 Mar 18, 2013
The_ Patriot_USA wrote:
<quoted text>
I think you are correct. Just have to wait and see the arguments from both sides. Then the decision.
Unless the judge is a left leaning liberal loon.

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#43 Mar 18, 2013
The_ Patriot_USA wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong wing nut......If you have to give reasons to show that something is constitutional you are proving that you followed rules, regulations and laws. Learn the definition of good cause because it's not just sound reasoning. There is a constitutional component to the SAFE ACT and they have to prove it's legal. Your sound judgement is only to explaining why they made the law, they still need to prove it's lawful.
Unless you sit on the US Supreme Court, please save what you think is absolute in your opinion. It takes a legal community to debate and judicially rule what is constitutional and isn't. Therefore, your opinion is just that- yours.

“STOP PLAYING THE RACE CARD”

Since: May 11

Location hidden

#46 Mar 18, 2013
Interesting guy wrote:
<quoted text>Calling yourself a "patriot" doesn't mean much. The fact you are on this forum trying to debate and yelling THEY CAN"T TAKE MY GUNS AWAY proves to many your limit value.
This great country needs the citizens to aid our legislators and not threaten them when something becomes unpopular to a chosen few.
Therefore, your value is limited and discredited due to your bias. If you served I thank you, however, becoming a Veteran doesn't grant you anything above the average citizen.
I am having a conversation and where do you see me yelling, I see you using the CAPS which is a form of yelling. I never made that statement (THEY CAN"T TAKE MY GUNS AWAY). Show me where I said that please. Who made any threats not me, so your point is moot. How do you know what I am doing and not doing regarding my legislators, you don't, you are making assumptions which is nothing more than you guessing. And as far as me being a veteran, who said anything about that in this conversation and who said it entitles me to any more than the average citizen, not me. All I see you doing is making false statement and assumptions.

If anyone is discredited or adds no value to this conversation it would be you. Now if you really want to have a discussion then stay on the facts.

“STOP PLAYING THE RACE CARD”

Since: May 11

Location hidden

#47 Mar 18, 2013
By the way, why did you feel the need to change your screen name.....AGAIN

Yeah, that shows you got credibility......NOT

“STOP PLAYING THE RACE CARD”

Since: May 11

Location hidden

#48 Mar 18, 2013
Interesting guy wrote:
<quoted text>Unless you sit on the US Supreme Court, please save what you think is absolute in your opinion. It takes a legal community to debate and judicially rule what is constitutional and isn't. Therefore, your opinion is just that- yours.
Who said anything about being absolute ?????? where, where, where, that's what i thought no one did. I think I have already stated that the courts will determine the outcome, learn to read. So, it's not an opinion, it is FACT, something you have trouble seeing.

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#49 Mar 18, 2013
The_ Patriot_USA wrote:
<quoted text>
I am having a conversation and where do you see me yelling, I see you using the CAPS which is a form of yelling. I never made that statement (THEY CAN"T TAKE MY GUNS AWAY). Show me where I said that please. Who made any threats not me, so your point is moot. How do you know what I am doing and not doing regarding my legislators, you don't, you are making assumptions which is nothing more than you guessing. And as far as me being a veteran, who said anything about that in this conversation and who said it entitles me to any more than the average citizen, not me. All I see you doing is making false statement and assumptions.
If anyone is discredited or adds no value to this conversation it would be you. Now if you really want to have a discussion then stay on the facts.
I am sorry if I caused you trepidation. I am harmless. I assume, you assume, others assume... It's what human beings do. However, there is truth in my words. It's difficult to find what's valid or rhetoric in your words. I don't debate someone's beliefs so save yours for church Sir.

“STOP PLAYING THE RACE CARD”

Since: May 11

Location hidden

#50 Mar 18, 2013
Interesting guy wrote:
<quoted text>I am sorry if I caused you trepidation. I am harmless. I assume, you assume, others assume... It's what human beings do. However, there is truth in my words. It's difficult to find what's valid or rhetoric in your words. I don't debate someone's beliefs so save yours for church Sir.
Seeing you just stated that you make assumptions as you did several times in your posts about me, then that means that you cannot verify their validity as fact. I don't debate beliefs and if you could actually comprehend what you are reading you would see that. Fact, there are lawsuits against the SAFE ACT, FACT, the state needs to prove portions of the SAFE ACT constitutional, it's not hard to understand. So why the twist and spin, save that crap for the playground.

Why didn't you answer my question ? why did you have to add a new screen name, yeah you got caught.

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#51 Mar 18, 2013
The_ Patriot_USA wrote:
<quoted text>
Seeing you just stated that you make assumptions as you did several times in your posts about me, then that means that you cannot verify their validity as fact. I don't debate beliefs and if you could actually comprehend what you are reading you would see that. Fact, there are lawsuits against the SAFE ACT, FACT, the state needs to prove portions of the SAFE ACT constitutional, it's not hard to understand. So why the twist and spin, save that crap for the playground.
Why didn't you answer my question ? why did you have to add a new screen name, yeah you got caught.
Who are you to tell the governor he "needs" to admend a NYS bill? Where is your unbiased research this bill is unconditional?

What is your professional and educational expertise which makes your opinion valid? Your "need" is paying taxes and ensuring a betterment for America and its citizens.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Rochester Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Barnhart unsafe driving (Oct '09) 6 min FattyGillibrand 2
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand is NOT PORKY!!!!! 10 min FattyGillibrand 4
American Captives held by Islamic State were wa... 17 min rochmetro 4
White Target employee from Fairport arrested (Jul '10) 29 min Ha Ha 9
Husbands can be jailed for insulting wives unde... (Jun '10) 31 min Ha Ha 7
Rochester Forum in Chaos 31 min FattyGillibrand 6
Teen runs stop sign, man in guarded condition (May '09) 2 hr Diamond Daisy 24
•••
•••
•••

Rochester Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Rochester People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Rochester News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Rochester
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••