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

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.

[American]

Tragic. Someone exercises their Bill of Rights and is destroyed by the gobblement. We learned nothing from the war on drugs.

[pigpen911]

How could this guy be arrested? A NY Judge put the "SAFE ACT" on "hold" until Coumo could prove the law is legal.Sure hope this guy has a good lawyer.

[Livefree]

Nice way to thank an Iraq war veteran, entrap em before the laws repealed. I think everyone has the right to bear arms including felons, because the courts have no credibility. The constitution works.

[Michael]

The new law was challenged in court but the judge gave the state until next month / April 29th to show the law isn't un-Constitutional... if they can't then an injunction will be issued on that date...

That means between / as of today ( March 15th ) and running through until at least April 29th... background checks have to be performed for private sales.

You know what...

I really ( really ) dislike NY state gun laws and don't even get me started on the hooks one has to jump through to get a handgun of any type registered in this state... but the law is the law... and we're expected to follow it until we get them overturned...

I just hope that the situation for the guy in the story was that he also thought the injunction was already in place and it was just a mistake... because otherwise he will be held up as part of the reason the law is "needed"...

[BillyBob]

Grady Stiles wrote:

NYSP undercover. Cuomo's army.

If they can find a sober Trooper.

[The_ Patriot_USA]

pigpen911 wrote:

How could this guy be arrested? A NY Judge put the "SAFE ACT" on "hold" until Coumo could prove the law is legal.Sure hope this guy has a good lawyer.

No injunction yet, Cuomo has until April 29th to prove that the SAFE ACT is constitutional. If he cannot , then the judge signs the injunctions on the SAFE ACT. If that happens this guy will get his case dismissed because it would be deemed unconstitutional. Cuomo has a BIG mountain climb to prove this one.

[msgr]

the state cannot diminish the rights of the people [HURTADO VS.CALIRORNIA,110 US.516 (1884) No one is boound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it [16AM.Jur.2nd,section177;later 2nd section 256] There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his excerscise ofcostitutional rights[SHERAR VS.CULLEN 481 F2d.946(1973)] All laws which are repunant to the constitution are null and void [MARBURY VS.MADISON,5(2cranch)137,174,1 76(1803)

[msgr]

The claim and execise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime[MILLER VS.US.,230f.supp.486,489(1956) ] Where righs secured by the constitution are ivolved ,there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrigate them[MIRANDA VS ARIZONA,384 US 436,491(1966) yea,we the people have the right to bear arms.....

[White Virus]

pigpen911 wrote:

How could this guy be arrested? A NY Judge put the "SAFE ACT" on "hold" until Coumo could prove the law is legal.Sure hope this guy has a good lawyer.

Look who has joined the ranks of the "low information voter"!

[White Virus]

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.

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.

[The_ Patriot_USA]

White Virus wrote:

<quoted text>
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.

Yeah good cause means that the state has to prove that it's constitutional, thanks for agreeing with me. Good cause means Legally adequate or substantial grounds or reason to take a certain action.

NEW YORK STATE MUST NOW PROVE IN COURT THAT THE HASTILY WRITTEN AND PASSED SAFE ACT IS CONSTITUTIONAL. THIS IS BIG NEWS.

Late yesterday, Wednesday 27Feb, a NYS Supreme Court Justice, the Honorable Deborah Chimes of Erie County, signed an order against the State of New York and Governor Andrew Cuomo requiring the respondents to appear before the court on April 29th and provide good cause and reasons why the State should not be enjoined from enforcing any provision of the assault weapons ban contained in the recently pass SAFE Act.

[The_ Patriot_USA]

White Virus wrote:

<quoted text>
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.

Please provide where several of SAFE ACT lawsuits have been thrown out. So far there are 2 lawsuits filed and both are by attorney James Tresmond. Neither of those lawsuits have been tossed, in fact just the opposite, The state has until April 29th to prove the constitutionality of the law (SAFE ACT).

[The_ Patriot_USA]

Buffalo, NY (WKWB)- As thousands of New Yorkers get ready to rally against the NY SAFE Act in Albany, a Western New York attorney has filed his second lawsuit -- and it could get part of the law thrown out.

From the day Governor Cuomo signed the NY SAFE Act, gun rights activists began fighting the new law.

Their main claim -- that it is unconstitutional and violates their second amendment rights.

[The_ Patriot_USA]

Yet more lawsuits filed against the SAFE ACT

disregard the March 11 date seeing it was pushed back to April 29th.

The anti-SAFE Act protestors are long gone but the lawsuits against Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s gun control measure are going strong.

Earlier in the week, Buffalo-area lawyer James Tresmond went to court contending the ban is unconstitutional and a judge there has ordered the state to answer by April.

And now, longtime activist Bob Schulz, acting as his own lawyer along with 1256 other plaintiffs who have signed on, went to Albany County Court, contending the governor’s use of a Message of Necessity to push the bill through was flawed.

State lawyers will have to be in court March 11 to explain why the court shouldn’t issue an injunction halting the law.

“I’m just simply interested in holding them accountable,” said Shulz, who just came through the Capitol press room with a load of court papers illustrating his case.

Also on tap: The still-pending lawsuit by Westchester’s Goldberg Segalla law firm which was hired by the NRA and state Rifle and Pistol Association.

[White Virus]

The_ Patriot_USA wrote:

<quoted text>Please provide where several of SAFE ACT lawsuits have been thrown out. So far there are 2 lawsuits filed and both are by attorney James Tresmond. Neither of those lawsuits have been tossed, in fact just the opposite, The state has until April 29th to prove the constitutionality of the law (SAFE ACT).

No injunction for NY Safe Act, state judge rules

A state Supreme Court judge ruled today against a motion from 1,200 plaintiffs looking for an immediate halt to the implementation of New York's new, stricter gun laws.

http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2013/0...

Another " low information voter"........

[The_ Patriot_USA]

Ok, that's 1.....where are the several lawsuits that have been thrown out. And if you noticed Robert Schulz didn't question the constitutionality of the SAFE ACT which he should have done. Instead he only went after how fast the law was put into effect and the way it was done. That was his only basis of the lawsuit. Quite different from James Tresmond's lawsuit.

[White Virus]

The_ Patriot_USA wrote:

Yet more lawsuits filed against the SAFE ACT

And now, longtime activist Bob Schulz, acting as his own lawyer along with 1256 other plaintiffs who have signed on, went to Albany County Court, contending the governorÂ’s use of a Message of Necessity to push the bill through was flawed.

State lawyers will have to be in court March 11 to explain why the court shouldnÂ’t issue an injunction halting the law.

“I’m just simply interested in holding them accountable,” said Shulz, who just came through the Capitol press room with a load of court papers illustrating his case.

interesting, you sited a case that was dismissed..... The other cases I can't find a news link to but, as Grady said they were for the most part bogus.

[White Virus]

The_ Patriot_USA wrote:

<quoted text>Yeah good cause means that the state has to prove that it's constitutional, thanks for agreeing with me. Good cause means Legally adequate or substantial grounds or reason to take a certain action.

NEW YORK STATE MUST NOW PROVE IN COURT THAT THE HASTILY WRITTEN AND PASSED SAFE ACT IS CONSTITUTIONAL. THIS IS BIG NEWS.

Late yesterday, Wednesday 27Feb, a NYS Supreme Court Justice, the Honorable Deborah Chimes of Erie County, signed an order against the State of New York and Governor Andrew Cuomo requiring the respondents to appear before the court on April 29th and provide good cause and reasons why the State should not be enjoined from enforcing any provision of the assault weapons ban contained in the recently pass SAFE Act.

Maybe you didn't get it the first time... The State doesn't have to prove anything. They just have to demonstrate that there is sound reasoning and grounds for the ban.(ie: West Webster, Sandy Hook, Herkimer)
By the 29th they may have more examples.

And that on it's face, doesn't violate the State or Federal Constitutions.

[Ha Ha]

https://www.youtube.com/watch...
Watch Louise Slaughter & Chuck Schummer act like idiots on the news about gun control!!!

[The_ Patriot_USA]

White Virus wrote:

<quoted text>
Maybe you didn't get it the first time... The State doesn't have to prove anything. They just have to demonstrate that there is sound reasoning and grounds for the ban.(ie: West Webster, Sandy Hook, Herkimer)
By the 29th they may have more examples.
And that on it's face, doesn't violate the State or Federal Constitutions.

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.