The SAFE Act and Dywinski - Lefkowitz trial update (hint : a jury will decide)

[AC Orange]

.

Here is an update from one of the Tresmond's legal team members :

The soon upcoming Dywinski/Lefkowitz trial will be heard and decided by a jury.The Dywinski case appeared for pre-trial on July 18, 2013. The case has not been stayed and is proceeding to the final stage of proceedings. We are now awaiting a trial date from the Court, hopefully before October. This is an Article 78 proceeding, so the plaintiff is entitled to a speedy trial. If trial is held, an injunction will be heard at the same time. So everyone, if we get a trial date in the next few days, we will finally have an injunction hearing date we can count on. I will keep you updated when a trial date is set.

So, the upcoming Dywinski/Lefkowitz trial will be heard by a jury. Five out of six ordinary Western New York citizens could sink key parts of Cuomo's brazenly unconstitutional SAFE Act. The four things which could be found unconstitutional and struck down are (1) The ban on "Large Capactity Ammunition Feeding Devices" (LCAFD). (2) The limitation on the number of bullets that may be loaded into a magazine. (3) The ban on certain shotguns. (4) The registration provisions for long guns.

Should be very interesting ......

 

[jrs]

Just heard Max Tresmond on Tom Baurle's show on WBEN 930 about an hour ago. I believe they are going to trial next month, the 15th? I'm sure Baurle will have the show available for streaming later tonight or tomorrow. Lots of great information from Tresmond Law. Listen, you'll learn a lot.... not only about this, but on the State scouring medical data (in violation of HIPPA) for the purpose of revocation of pistol permits (said they had more than one Confidential Informant to verify and are in discovery proceedings at this time).
Also, learned something new...NY Penal Law states that if a NY resident wishes to use a handgun for home defense, NY Law is "must issue", while CCW is 'may issue"....interesting!

 

[BC1]

I went to the governors website to see if a Remington 870 (or any pump shotgun) requires registration. It did not. So I looked at the state penal law and found the crime of possessing a large capacity feeding device. After reading it I didn't believe it would apply to a pump shotgun capable of holding more than 10. The law states "large capacity feeding device." A tube inside a shotgun is not a device as far as I can see. What would make a single part of a shotgun an individual device, like a mag? So I called the state offices in Albany to ask the question and was told it did not apply to shotguns. A large capacity feeding device must be able to hold more than ten rounds. So if the 870 can hold more than 10 it shouldn't matter because it's not a feeding device, right? My nephew got a Henry Golden Boy .22 cal. for Christmas last year. That tube also holds more than 10. This is what happens when they enact legislation in the hurry of night.
.
§ 265.36 Unlawful possession of a large capacity ammunition feeding device.
It shall be unlawful for a person to knowingly possess a large capacity ammunition feeding device manufactured before September thirteenth, nineteen hundred ninety-four, and if such person lawfully possessed such large capacity feeding device before the effective date of the chapter of the laws of two thousand thirteen which added this section, that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than ten rounds of ammunition.

 

[officerT]

My concern is what about veterans returning home from deployment who may have or possibly have PTSD due to combat operations. will our rights to posses a handgun be denied? will they automatically decline because they may belive or have reason to believe that we maybe a threat to others or our selves. where are rights since we fought for this country and defend the constitution that is being shredded.

 

[jrs]

I don't think Coumo gives a damn about your right or what you've done to preserve our freedoms...for that I thank and commend you. As for how it relates to your gun rights, I believe Coumo's only consideration is how can he use someone's military service against you in order to disarm you, along with the rest of the populous. As his quest to become Emperor continues, he and the liberal elite are all about power and control....however they can't exercise COMPLETE CONTROL if the 'citizens' are armed. They would rather we were unarmed 'subjects'.

Remember... as long as the populous is armed, we remain Citizens, but when we are unarmed and defenseless against our own government, we are then Subjects.

Finally, on another note... did you see the Liar In Chief awarding a Medal (Of Honor?) today to one of our finest.... I couldn't help but notice the look on his face....he appeared to have a look of disdain while he was putting the ribbon around this fine young man's neck. His attitude toward our military and the sacrifices they make is shameful!

 

[officerT]

Thanks for the reply. I appreciate the thanks for serving but no thanks is needed its my duty as an American to make sure all Americans are protected. As for my state and the safe act I think it's bs. This country will soon become a communist country. Beware that any kind of violation to the law even a traffic ticket will soon get our permits suspended or revoked because we as people are not allowed to protect ourselves.

 

[officerT]

Oh and about the Medal of Honor I saw it, very disgusting and disrespectful, he didn't even salute the soldier like he is supposed to. No matter what rank you are if you earned a Medal of Honor all higher ups are supposed to salute you, but I guess that doesn't apply anymore.

 

[Nightmare45]

Constitution 2nd Amendment, since you will not let me post the actual Act by name the gun act of 1902 starts with a D ends with a K, prevent any entity from enforcing this crap against America Citizens.

 

[officerT]

Nightmare could you send that to my inbox please. I'd like to know more about it.

 

[AC Orange]

My concern is what about veterans returning home from deployment who may have or possibly have PTSD due to combat operations. will our rights to posses a handgun be denied? will they automatically decline because they may belive or have reason to believe that we maybe a threat to others or our selves. where are rights since we fought for this country and defend the constitution that is being shredded.

.

My son's wife has a relative who served in Nam. He has held a pistol permit for 30-something years. Late last year he found out he could get partial disability (meaning, of course, a monthly check) if he filled out the paperwork (thru the VA) saying he has PTSD. He claims he has never been bothered by his experience (i.e., never been treated for any mental health issues) but he wants the cash, so he went through with it. Recently they notified him that he qualified for a 50% disability at $900 a month. I am wondering if it is possible that at some future point he may be saying good-bye to his permit......

.

 

[officerT]

Well AC I have 50 percent but from my understanding the VA will not release any medical records.

 

[jrs]

Max Tresmond was on Baurle's show today with an update on the Dywinski case and the safe act suit. He has a copy of the State Police "Safe Act Field Guide" which basically lays out how ALL ROADS LEAD TO CONFISCATION!

I have attached a link to the document(legally permissible in the case per Max Tresmond). Interesting read, especially page 6. Link Removed

In addition, if you get a chance, listen to the show on WBEN AM, Tom Baurle. Max also discusses the question of informing an officer (not required in NY) during a traffic stop and the ramifications of your decision to inform as a "courtesy"....not a good idea, as it opens too many doors for the police to investigate further.

 

[Huntington]

All due respect to your friend for his service but if he only applied for VA compensation because he wanted the cash he is a disgrace. There is no honor in what it sounds like he did.