Michael J. Dillon Memorial U.S. Courthouse, Buffalo, NY
Who? What? Where? When? and Why?
As TRPChicago says, "Each case is a story," a sketch of a major moment in someone's life. Some real person, or persons, has an important issue that they need the court to sort out.
As most of you know, I am not a lawyer, but I want to understand gun law. I like to be informed, and to make up my own mind, rather than rely on digested news. One way that I am learning which laws and which legal principles are in play is to read some of the actual cases percolating up to the Supreme Court. Some of the disputes embody all the drama and tension found in good fiction and mystery writing.
When I try to wrap my mind around the kernel of a gun lawsuit it helps to begin with a basic story outline, starting with the first W question, Who? In this diary I'll introduce the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit challenging the NYSAFE Act. I'll hold your hand as we begin to install the important features of the story into our collective "working memory."
The NY SAFE Act was discussed on Daily Kos last winter, here and here, and introduced in last week's Open Thread. This decision is the first constitutional review of the new gun law. Written by federal Judge WILLIAM M. SKRETNY in the Western District of New York, the order was filed on Tuesday, December 31, 2013, in Buffalo, New York. The NYTimes has a review of the decision.
Since I plan to write more about the NYSAFE Act, let's consider this diary the beginning of a series, Lilith's Litigation Tutorial - The NYSAFE Act (part I).
This is an Open Thread.
Sponsored by the Firearms Law and Policy Group
We publish Open Threads on Sundays and Wednesdays
The Daily Kos Firearms Law and Policy group studies actions for reducing firearm deaths and injuries in a manner that is consistent with the current Supreme Court interpretation of the Second Amendment. We also cover the many positive aspects of gun ownership, including hunting, shooting sports, and self-defense.
To see our list of original and republished diaries, go to the Firearms Law and Policy diary list. Click on the ♥ or the word "Follow" next to our group name to add our posts to your stream, and use the link next to the heart to send a message to the group if you have a question or would like to join.
|
*An earlier diary introduced Daily Kos to this case on December 31st.
Who's Who - Challenging the NY SAFE Act
In this segment of this series we'll look at who brought the suit to challenge the law. In later diaries we'll look at where they filed it, and who must answer the claims to defend the law. No matter where you stand on the spectrum of gun rights/gun regulations, organizations in your state that challenge gun laws are organizations worth knowing something about.
On the first page of the decision we see that the suit was filed in federal court, in the Western District of New York. The plaintiffs include four shooting sports clubs, four companies that make or sell guns, and three individuals. The defendants are the NY state governor (Cuomo), the NY Attorney General (Schneiderman), the Superintendent of the NY State Police, District Attorney for Genesee County, and the Police Chief of Lancaster, NY.
I wonder why, in cases like this, it is necessary to name defendants at so many different levels? I have no idea. Attorneys? Anyone? Please help us in the comments to understand this elementary aspect of litigation.
Where the suit was filed:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
|
|
Who brought the suit: (the Plaintiffs)
NEW YORK STATE RIFLE AND PISTOL ASSOCIATION, INC.;
WESTCHESTER COUNTY FIREARMS OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.;
SPORTSMEN'S ASSOCIATION FOR FIREARMS EDUCATION, INC.;
NEW YORK STATE AMATEUR TRAPSHOOTING ASSOCIATION, INC.;
BEDELL CUSTOM;
BEIKIRCH AMMUNITION CORPORATION;
BLUELINE TACTICAL & POLICE SUPPLY, LLC;
BATAVIA MARINE & SPORTING SUPPLY;
WILLIAM NOJAY,
THOMAS GALVIN, and
ROGER HORVATH,
|
|
Who must respond to the claims: (the Defendents)
ANDREW M. CUOMO, Governor of the State of New York;
ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, Attorney General of the State of New York;
JOSEPH A. D'AMICO, Superintendent of the New York State Police;
LAWRENCE FRIEDMAN, District Attorney for Genesee County;
and GERALD J. GILL, Chief of Police for the Town of Lancaster, New York
|
|
The lead plaintiff in this case is an organization, the
New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, NYSRPA.
It's always helpful to do a google search on the lead organizational plaintiff. They usually have a website where they will cheerfully explain their goals and why they are challenging this specific law. The plaintiff's will have links to Amicus Briefs in support of their claim. Amicus Briefs are documents filed by "friends of the Court" who will attempt to educate the judges about the evidence and suggest case law supporting their arguments. These documents will usually state openly whether they support the plaintiffs or the defendants, or neither.
About Us
The New York State Rifle & Pistol Association is the state's largest and nation's oldest firearms advocacy organization. Since 1871, our organization has been dedicated to the preservation of Second Amendment rights, firearm safety, education and training, and the shooting sports. Our membership consists of individuals and clubs throughout the state. We are a not-for-profit 501(c)4 organization and the official NRA-affiliated State Association in New York.
The lead Plaintiff's webpage includes a timeline of the case, with links to various documents. I see they initially filed the suit last spring on March 21, 2013. That's an important anchor point to assemble a low resolution map of the story in my mind.
Here is a copy of the Court's decision - Western District of New York, December 31st.
"The Court ruled against us on guns, but dismissed 7 round limit."
NYSRPA, Lead Plaintiff
New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, NYSRPA
March 21, 2013: Initial filing.
[...]
May 14, 2013 Update: New York State Sheriff's Association files a Amicus Curiae in support of our lawsuit.
May 15, 2013 Update: We have filed both a Complaint and an Amended Complaint in the USDC for the Western District of New York. Our Amended Complaint claims that the SAFE Act is unconstitutional in that it violates the Second Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause, and is unconstitutionally vague.[...] To date we have spent $164,000 on the suit and have received an additional $80,000 from the NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund.
[...]
June 13, 2013 Update: [...] To date we have spent $225,000 on the lawsuit.
[...]
December 26, 2013 Update: Judge William Skretny has decided oral arguments are unnecessary and he will make his decision based upon the briefs submitted by both parties.
December 31, 2013 Update: The Court ruled against us on guns, but dismissed 7 round limit. Here is a copy of the decision. A formal opinion of this decision will be posted here at a later date.
January 3, 2014: We will appeal the court decision. [A draft of the Appeal is linked in the NYSRPA timeline for the case
|
Skipping to the bottom of the NYSRPA timeline, I see that there were no oral arguments. That's interesting.
December 26, 2013 Update: Judge William Skretny has decided oral arguments are unnecessary and he will make his decision based upon the briefs submitted by both parties.
That simple fact impresses me.
It might mean the judge decided that the briefs were well-written and complete, so well-written that they contained all the information needed to fully analyze the claims. Otherwise, the judge would have scheduled oral arguments so he could ask questions of each side, to request additional evidence or to clarify something about the law. I don't know how often that happens, but I think the attorneys are smart, they did their homework and wrote clear briefs. Their claims and evidence were focused on the issues and appropriate for the District Court level.
Next, I see at the bottom that the judge issued his opinion on December 31, 2013 and four days later they had already drafted their appeal.
Let's discuss.
8:23 PM PT: (h/t) oldpotsmuggler - I edited the diary in the middle:
1. Added an extra link to the decision, (in addition to the link at the end of the plaintiff's timeline.
2. Edited the transition to the Plaintiff's timeline to emphasize that the summary words are quoting the Lead Plaintiff ver batim, "The Court ruled against us on guns, but dismissed 7 round limit."
Thu Jan 09, 2014 at 7:58 AM PT: (h/t) blackhand - Fixed the broken link in the timeline. A draft of the Appeal is found at the plaintiff's page that logs everything that happens in the case. If you want to keep track of the case, bookmark that page.
January 3, 2014: We will appeal the court decision. [A draft of the Appeal is linked in the NYSRPA timeline for the case.