Part of the SAFE ACT "dropped" in eire county

MothMan

MothMan

.338 Win Mag
Messages
6,416
Reaction score
11,013
Location
Point Pleasant, WV
And buried almost to the end is this article.

“In the wake of the first federal court decision, State Police leadership instructed troopers to follow the court ruling when enforcing the SAFE Act, at least for the time being, the Albany Times-Union reported at the time. Troopers now enforce the law as written, according to an agency spokesman.”

So if you live outside of Erie Co. you could be charged with to many bullitts. Especially if your encounter involves the Grey Shirted Cuomo goons. And as with many charges this offense is an add on charge in most cases.
 
Deplorable Me

Deplorable Me

.577 Tyrannosaur.
Messages
23,967
Reaction score
46,637
Location
Western Front; Occupied NY
Rulings from federal courts below the U.S. Supreme Court are not binding on state entities, so the 2013 and 2015 rulings on this part of the SAFE Act amount to mere suggestions, according to Flynn. It is up to individual county district attorneys to decide whether they will abide by the rulings of federal judges, he said.
Click to expand...

So why bother to even have these cases heard at the lower court level? It seems this case should have gone directly to the Supreme Court since the lower courts by description has no binding power. Pure fraud. Throw the tea and the politicians in the harbor.
 
Deplorable Me

Deplorable Me

.577 Tyrannosaur.
Messages
23,967
Reaction score
46,637
Location
Western Front; Occupied NY
Full credit to the Buffalo News:

Amid confusion, part of SAFE Act will stop being enforced in Erie County
By Aaron Besecker | Published 6:00 a.m. November 19, 2018
  • SHARE
  • TWEET

  • Erie County District Attorney John Flynn. (John Hickey/News file photo)

    And in the future, that charge will no longer be prosecuted in the county under his administration, according to Flynn.

    And Buffalo police said they will stop arresting people for violating that provision of the law.

    It is the latest development in the rocky implementation of the state's strict gun law passed in the wake of the 2012 mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut that killed 26 people, including 20 children.

    Rulings from federal courts below the U.S. Supreme Court are not binding on state entities, so the 2013 and 2015 rulings on this part of the SAFE Act amount to mere suggestions, according to Flynn. It is up to individual county district attorneys to decide whether they will abide by the rulings of federal judges, he said.

    “I am going to take their ruling and I am going to follow that,” the district attorney said.

    The matter came to Flynn’s attention last week after The Buffalo News inquired about the Nov. 7 arrests of four Buffalo men. The four, who were arrested after a traffic stop in Buffalo, were accused of having two, fully loaded 10-round magazines in their vehicle.

    A fight from the start
    The legal fight over the SAFE Act started in early 2013.

    The New York Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement Act was passed by the State Legislature that January after being rushed to a vote only hours after it was printed. It was pushed by Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, who signed it into law in March of that year.

    In December 2013, U.S. District Court Judge William M. Skretny gave gun-control advocates a major victory by upholding most of the law. Skretny upheld the law’s ban on assault-style weapons and high-capacity magazines, but rejected the seven-round limit for magazines that could hold 10 rounds.

    In October 2015, the 2nd Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals upheld the ban on high-capacity magazines and semiautomatic weapons with detachable magazines and one or more military-style features. The court also upheld Skretny’s 2013 decision tossing the prohibition against loading 10-round magazines with more than seven rounds.


    Since then, Erie County prosecutors had been moving ahead with criminal cases in which people are charged with having more than seven rounds in a 10-round magazine, despite the federal court rulings.

    That will now change.


    The four Buffalo men charged with violating the SAFE Act were, from left, Dorrell Foster, 27; Jalen M. Anderson, 24; Joshua A. Barnes, 27; and David C. Williams Jr., 21. (Buffalo Police Department)

    From the enactment of the law until Oct. 20, there have been 192 arrests involving this charge statewide, according to the state Division of Criminal Justice Services, the agency that collects statistics from arresting agencies. In 85 percent of those arrests, there was at least one other charge that was more serious, a spokeswoman for the agency said.

    An attorney for the state Sheriffs’ Association said he was unaware of any sheriff’s office in New York still enforcing that provision of the law since federal judges weighed in.

    “My understanding is that that means the law is no longer valid,” Alex Wilson, associate counsel for the Sheriffs’ Association, said of the federal rulings. “I’m not aware of any sheriff’s office out there charging people for having magazines that hold 10 rounds.”

    When told about the four recent arrests on that charge in Buffalo, Wilson said it was the first time he’d heard of someone being charged under that provision of the SAFE Act since the federal courts ruled.

    Erie County Sheriff Timothy B. Howard, who questioned the constitutionality of the law after it was passed, proudly proclaimed when running for re-election in 2013 that his agency would not enforce the law.

    Tom King, president of the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, said he considered the issue over magazine capacity a settled one. It was his organization's lawsuit that prompted Skretny's ruling.

    The recent arrests in Buffalo were the first of its kind King was aware of since the court rulings, he said.

    “That’s a violation of their civil rights,” he said.

    The provision in question falls under the section of the state penal law dealing with “unlawful possession of certain ammunition feeding devices.” It’s a misdemeanor offense, unless it happens in the person’s home, in which case it’s a noncriminal violation.

    Though the federal judges have ruled, state lawmakers have left the law on the books as written.

    In the wake of the first federal court decision, State Police leadership instructed troopers to follow the court ruling when enforcing the SAFE Act, at least for the time being, the Albany Times-Union reported at the time. Troopers now enforce the law as written, according to an agency spokesman.

    Explaining his decision to stop prosecuting this SAFE Act charge, Flynn said there has been no ruling by the division of the State Appellate Court that covers Erie County. Two of the three other appellate divisions, which cover other parts of the state, have ruled on the issue and those state courts have come down in opposition to the federal decision and upheld the state law, he said.

    Flynn, who took office at the start of 2017, said he is relying on the ruling of a federal judge in his geographic area, as well as the 2nd Circuit, which is a step below the U.S. Supreme Court.

    “I personally find that very useful and persuasive,” he said.

    The district attorney, acknowledging the highly charged political environment surrounding gun issues, including the SAFE Act, described his decision as a choice he is making.

    “I’m faced with a contradiction here. I’m faced with a penal law that says something and then I have a federal court that says something else.”

    He continued: “I want to be clear. I’m not getting involved here in whether or not I like the SAFE Act or don’t like the SAFE Act. All I’m doing is following the law here.”

    Moving forward, Flynn said his office will advise police agencies around the county not to charge individuals under this section of law. Flynn noted that oftentimes someone charged with that crime also faces other charges, often including another gun charge.

    “It’s not like I’m setting criminals free,” he said of his decision to drop the charges in the 23 open cases.
 
Doc8404

Doc8404

.450/400 Nitro Ex
Messages
13,439
Reaction score
23,907
Location
Oneida County NY
What?????
Misquote or moron?
I wasn’t aware of that either.
Now the 8+ rounds is a different story. And what the article is about.

“My understanding is that that means the law is no longer valid,” Alex Wilson, associate counsel for the Sheriffs’ Association, said of the federal rulings. “I’m not aware of any sheriff’s office out there charging people for having magazines that hold 10 rounds.”
 
camper4lyfe

camper4lyfe

.308 Win
Messages
4,475
Reaction score
6,699
Location
Avon, NY
Doc8404 said:
What?????
Misquote or moron?
I wasn’t aware of that either.
Now the 8+ rounds is a different story. And what the article is about.

“My understanding is that that means the law is no longer valid,” Alex Wilson, associate counsel for the Sheriffs’ Association, said of the federal rulings. “I’m not aware of any sheriff’s office out there charging people for having magazines that hold 10 rounds.”
Click to expand...

Right. This is talking about magazine capacity, not how much it's loaded with. It seems they skirted that part.
 
byron

byron

.308 Win
Messages
3,284
Reaction score
13,121
Location
prattsburgh ny
this is confusing
United States courts of appeals—Decisions of the U.S. courts of appeals are mandatory on district courts and other lower courts within the circuit. ... Statesupreme court decisions will also be binding on federal courts that are interpreting the state's law under diversity jurisdiction.


Federal courts of appeals decisions are not binding on state courts. ... Statesupreme court decisions will also be binding on federal courts that are interpreting the state's law under diversity jurisdiction.


Federal courts may overrule a state court only when there is a federal question, which is to say, a specific issue (such as consistency with the Federal Constitution) that gives rise to federal jurisdiction

so what I take of this is that if it is a constitual law they are binding
 
@thewheels

@thewheels

.308 Win
Messages
3,052
Reaction score
4,092
Location
Taxland
Deplorable Me said:
So why bother to even have these cases heard at the lower court level? It seems this case should have gone directly to the Supreme Court since the lower courts by description has no binding power. Pure fraud. Throw the tea and the politicians in the harbor.
Click to expand...

Not a lawyer and I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night but the non binding thing sounds like horse shit to me.
 
Deplorable Me

Deplorable Me

.577 Tyrannosaur.
Messages
23,967
Reaction score
46,637
Location
Western Front; Occupied NY
Curley, Larry, Moe, Sharpton?

4_arrests2.jpg
 
SomeSoldier

SomeSoldier

.450/400 Nitro Ex
U.S. Military
Messages
9,578
Reaction score
18,400
Location
Florida
I thought that when a bill is signed into law that whole thing needs to be implemented. What happens when only part of a law is implemented? Is that even legal? If part of the law isn't upheld does that throw out the whole law??
 
Marine Cpl

Marine Cpl

.577 Tyrannosaur.
Messages
22,054
Reaction score
20,648
Location
Orange County
This article is misleading. Those 4 probably didn't have 10 rd magazines when they were arrested. I'm guessing they were standard capacity.

Also, a Circuit Court ruling is binding towards the state.

This article is just hogwash filled with misinformation.
 
camper4lyfe

camper4lyfe

.308 Win
Messages
4,475
Reaction score
6,699
Location
Avon, NY
Willjr75 said:
This article is misleading. Those 4 probably didn't have 10 rd magazines when they were arrested. I'm guessing they were standard capacity.

Also, a Circuit Court ruling is binding towards the state.

This article is just hogwash filled with misinformation.
Click to expand...

Are you surprised by this?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top