Amid confusion, part of SAFE Act will stop being enforced in Erie County

[GOPerfect]

I had a copy of the SP handbook that was given out concerning changes in the safe act, it stated the correction in there that the 7rd limit was struck down and NOT to be enforced. I haven't been able to find the damn thing since I moved this summer.
Hopefully I can eventually find it and scan it to post it to finally put an end to beating this horse. Poor thing has been dead a while now.
ETA: There are two PDF versions of it on the web, one is before the court ruled it to be struck. I keep finding the first one though. Can't remember which website had the corrected version.

This, I believe is what you are talking about...


4. Possessing a magazine loaded with more than 7 rounds / New PL section 265.37


New PL section 265.37 had made it a crime to load any magazine with more than 7 rounds of ammunition, regardless of the capacity of the magazine. On December 31st, the United States District Court for the Western District of New York issued a decision as a result of challenges to various provisions of the New York Safe Act. While the federal district court upheld most of its provisions, the Court held that this section, "Unlawful Possession of Certain Ammunition Feeding Devices," was unconstitutional. As a result of the Court’s decision members are instructed not to enforce PL 265.37 at this time.

 

[Marine Cpl]

This, I believe is what you are talking about...


4. Possessing a magazine loaded with more than 7 rounds / New PL section 265.37


New PL section 265.37 had made it a crime to load any magazine with more than 7 rounds of ammunition, regardless of the capacity of the magazine. On December 31st, the United States District Court for the Western District of New York issued a decision as a result of challenges to various provisions of the New York Safe Act. While the federal district court upheld most of its provisions, the Court held that this section, "Unlawful Possession of Certain Ammunition Feeding Devices," was unconstitutional. As a result of the Court’s decision members are instructed not to enforce PL 265.37 at this time.

There was another decision by a higher Court after that. It was by the second circuit appeals court of the United States.

 

[FrankenCub]

This, I believe is what you are talking about...


4. Possessing a magazine loaded with more than 7 rounds / New PL section 265.37


New PL section 265.37 had made it a crime to load any magazine with more than 7 rounds of ammunition, regardless of the capacity of the magazine. On December 31st, the United States District Court for the Western District of New York issued a decision as a result of challenges to various provisions of the New York Safe Act. While the federal district court upheld most of its provisions, the Court held that this section, "Unlawful Possession of Certain Ammunition Feeding Devices," was unconstitutional. As a result of the Court’s decision members are instructed not to enforce PL 265.37 at this time.

I'm pretty sure the revised handbook stated 10rds was legal. Maybe I'm remembering it wrong? I'll look when I get my desktop PC running and see if I happened to also save a PDF file of it.

 

[GOPerfect]

Gotta go to Dog training, more on this later. Sorry

 

[GOPerfect]

I will stun you all with my ignorance!

 

[Marine Cpl]

@GOPerfect . Here is the 2nd Circuit's decision. Most people aren't aware of this ruling and are stuck on the first lower Court ruling that only applied to the Western half of the state. They are totally unaware that a higher Court decision was issued.

This Circuit Court ruling reaffirmed Judge Skretny's prior decision that only applied to the Western half of NYS. It reaffirmed the 7 Rd in a 10 rd magazine as unconstitutional and also put back the muzzle brake back into the law that the lower Court struck since it was spelled wrong.

This ruling applied it to the whole NYS in its entirety along with the state of Connecticut in their lawsuit. The 2nd Circuit is the highest court of the land just below SCOTUS.

No offense but all Law Enforcement in this state should be up on court decisions that affect their job and the citizens that it applies to.

The state is held to decisions applied by Circuit Courts. Whoever said that Circuit Court rulings don't apply to the states under it's jurisdiction is wrong. That's what Circuit level appeals courts are for.

 

[GOPerfect]

This is where some my confusion lays:


Most Commentators and Courts Agree that State Courts are Only Bound by the Supreme Court when Interpreting the Constitution and Federal Statutes

State courts sometimes decide cases which require them to interpret the Constitution of the United States and federal statues. When analyzing the Constitution or federal statutes, must states follow precedent from federal courts? That is, are federal court decisions binding precedent on the state courts?

Most courts (and law professors) agree that the answer is “No.” According to most courts, experts, and a few Supreme Court justices, only the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Constitution and federal law binds state courts. As a result, most state courts do not consider themselves bound by “lower federal courts”, including the Circuit Court of Appeals and the united States District Courts.



This is what Erie County DA Flynn is saying as well.


Most State Courts Consider Lower Federal Court Decisions Persuasive, But Not Binding Precedent

 

[FrankenCub]

Is that coming from liberal commentators, liberal justices, and liberal law professors? If that were the case they could completely ignore the US Constitution all together. I can understand the States Rights issue, but this is a Bill of Rights issue and ruled as unconstitutional by a federal court. I'm not a real constitutional lawyer so....
If States are not bound by the Constitution, then I'm not bound by State law.

 

[Marine Cpl]

This is where some my confusion lays:


Most Commentators and Courts Agree that State Courts are Only Bound by the Supreme Court when Interpreting the Constitution and Federal Statutes

State courts sometimes decide cases which require them to interpret the Constitution of the United States and federal statues. When analyzing the Constitution or federal statutes, must states follow precedent from federal courts? That is, are federal court decisions binding precedent on the state courts?

Most courts (and law professors) agree that the answer is “No.” According to most courts, experts, and a few Supreme Court justices, only the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Constitution and federal law binds state courts. As a result, most state courts do not consider themselves bound by “lower federal courts”, including the Circuit Court of Appeals and the united States District Courts.



This is what Erie County DA Flynn is saying as well.


Most State Courts Consider Lower Federal Court Decisions Persuasive, But Not Binding Precedent

Where did that nonsense come from? That's what United States Circuit Courts of Appeal are for.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Is that coming from liberal commentators, liberal justices, and liberal law professors? If that were the case they could completely ignore the US Constitution all together. I can understand the States Rights issue, but this is a Bill of Rights issue and ruled as unconstitutional by a federal court. I'm not a real constitutional lawyer so....
If States are not bound by the Constitution, then I'm not bound by State law.

If they didn't have jurisdiction over the states they preside over, then what's the point of having them? This is the biggest nonsense I've ever heard yet.

What a BS article.

 

[Acer-m14]

I'll take all this into consideration while i have a deep conference with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and get back to you ..










LMAO

 

[Edwardteach72]

I think reading a lot of these comments in this post just gave me aids.

What the fuck?????

 

[Shadow2]

I would have had an unlawful arrest suite on day one ..

 

[Shadow2]

@GOPerfect . Here is the 2nd Circuit's decision. Most people aren't aware of this ruling and are stuck on the first lower Court ruling that only applied to the Western half of the state. They are totally unaware that a higher Court decision was issued.

This Circuit Court ruling reaffirmed Judge Skretny's prior decision that only applied to the Western half of NYS. It reaffirmed the 7 Rd in a 10 rd magazine as unconstitutional and also put back the muzzle brake back into the law that the lower Court struck since it was spelled wrong.

This ruling applied it to the whole NYS in its entirety along with the state of Connecticut in their lawsuit. The 2nd Circuit is the highest court of the land just below SCOTUS.

No offense but all Law Enforcement in this state should be up on court decisions that affect their job and the citizens that it applies to.

The state is held to decisions applied by Circuit Courts. Whoever said that Circuit Court rulings don't apply to the states under it's jurisdiction is wrong. That's what Circuit level appeals courts are for.

"No Offense but all law enforcement" I have no problem offending these MORONS, They should be 100% up too speed on laws that can ruin peoples lives. The financial burden alone, the loss of a job over such an arrest.

 

[GOPerfect]

"No Offense but all law enforcement" I have no problem offending these MORONS, They should be 100% up too speed on laws that can ruin peoples lives. The financial burden alone, the loss of a job over such an arrest.

That is like saying all citizens should be 100% up too speed on the laws that can ruin their own lives.

The Court system is very confusing; more should study and learn.

 

[1911guy]

I'll take all this into consideration while i have a deep conference with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and get back to you ..










LMAO

She told me that I can read any magazine I want to, and I can put clips on pages to mark what I want to.

 

[Marine Cpl]

That is like saying all citizens should be 100% up too speed on the laws that can ruin their own lives.

The Court system is very confusing; more should study and learn.

Yeah but it's not our jobs to arrest ourselves.

 

[GOPerfect]

Yeah but it's not our jobs to arrest ourselves.

Picking up what you are putting down. The police would not arrest if citizens took personal responsibility and did not break the law.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Picking up what you are putting down. The police would not arrest if citizens took personal responsibility and did not break the law.

Agreed. The citizens should look up to find out if what they are doing is legal.
Those of us that do, try to follow the law. We read Appeals Court decisions. Not all police read them though and they make arrests based on nullified laws. The buck should stop with law enforcement since it's their job.

In my profession, I'm required to read daily all updates to rules and regulations that I'm subject to and I'm expected to abide by them. I can't just wing it for example and miss a slow ordered speed on a certain track and endanger my passengers. I also have to be up on all passenger compliance issues so that I don't stop the train and inconvenience other passengers because a previous rule got stricken. Like allowing therapy dogs on certain trains for example.

 

[Uzi]

Is a police officer actually upholding their oath to the constitution by enforcing any aspect of the NY safe act?

 

[Marine Cpl]

Is a police officer actually upholding their oath to the constitution by enforcing any aspect of the NY safe act?

No. All gun laws no matter what they are infringe on the 2A. Even after SCOTUS rules that certain infringements are okay, they shouldn't be enforced since those judges are now domestic enemies of the Constitution of the United States.

It's impossible for a cop to not violate his oath unless he's never ever made a gun arrest.

 

[Uzi]

No. All gun laws no matter what they are infringe on the 2A. Even after SCOTUS rules that certain infringements are okay, they shouldn't be enforced since those judges are now domestic enemies of the Constitution of the United States.

It's impossible for a cop to not violate his oath.

 

[GOPerfect]

No. All gun laws no matter what they are infringe on the 2A. Even after SCOTUS rules that certain infringements are okay, they shouldn't be enforced since those judges are now domestic enemies of the Constitution of the United States.

It's impossible for a cop to not violate his oath unless he's never ever made a gun arrest.

Good thing I have NEVER violated my Oaths!

 

[Acer-m14]

its hunting time and i was out driving around the last few days ... my gun was loaded , but my weapons were not .. BTW i think my gun shoots like 1.2 mil rnd a pop LOL .. wish they would get the wording right in some laws ..

 

[Shadow2]

Name a typical arrest most people don't know was illegal when they did it? 7 rounds in a mag I knew that was dropped the day the decision was published. i would expect law enforcement to know the same since the "BURDEN" is and always be the states. When it comes to a mans freedom they don't get to make mistakes.

That is like saying all citizens should be 100% up too speed on the laws that can ruin their own lives.

The Court system is very confusing; more should study and learn.

That is like saying all citizens should be 100% up too speed on the laws that can ruin their own lives.

The Court system is very confusing; more should study and learn.

 

[Edwardteach72]

Name a typical arrest most people don't know was illegal when they did it? 7 rounds in a mag I knew that was dropped the day the decision was published. i would expect law enforcement to know the same since the "BURDEN" is and always be the states. When it comes to a mans freedom they don't get to make mistakes.

Hell my undersheriff had no idea months after, and my county still doesnt know

 

[jimc]

The main issue is that the wording of the law should be changed. The state police may have a handbook stating not to make arrests for 8-10 rounds in a magazine, but the law does not state that. If I were moving to NY from out of state, I would look at the state laws and the Safe Act Website. Neither have updated text.

 

[GOPerfect]

Some really should learn and try to understand our court system.

Just saying.

 

[Edwardteach72]

Some really should learn and try to understand our court system.

Just saying.

Arent you the one who tried to say that a federal court, just under the supreme court, holds no bearing in the states that fall under its jurisdiction?

Thanks now after that post.. I now have zika

 

[GOPerfect]

Arent you the one who tried to say that a federal court, just under the supreme court, holds no bearing in the states that fall under its jurisdiction?

Thanks now after that post.. I now have zika

Yep...