NYC Gun Charges Dropped. Now I Can Speak Out - MARK MECKLER

[Grunwald]

How Dumb Are New Yorkers?

 

[Grunwald]

this dumb
​

 

[Gunner3456]

I hope I was clear. This is big deal to me and should be to everyone. If a city, county or state violates your rights under the US Constitution and you decide to sue, you will be suing in Federal Court and that city, county or state will have no more rights in court than you do. They will be called "the defendant."

If you prevail at the trial level and at all levels of appeal if appealed, the local law, if ruled unconstitutional, will be invalidated permanently as unconstitutional and you would get your gun back, have charges dismissed and maybe even win a lot of money. The trial and all appeals will be in Federal courts and the Federal courts will take jurisdiction over the local and state authorities.

The Federal court won't dismiss your case if properly filed and followed up unless it is entirely frivolous, and this isn't. You are entitled to your day in court.

 

[fd15k]

I hope I was clear. This is big deal to me and should be to everyone. If a city, county or state violates your rights under the US Constitution and you decide to sue, you will be suing in Federal Court and that city, county or state will have no more rights in court than you do. They will be called "the defendant."

If you prevail at the trial level and at all levels of appeal if appealed, the local law, if ruled unconstitutional, will be invalidated permanently as unconstitutional and you would get your gun back, have charges dismissed and maybe even win a lot of money. The trial and all appeals will be in Federal courts and the Federal courts will take jurisdiction over the local and state authorities.

The Federal court won't dismiss your case if properly filed and followed up unless it is entirely frivolous, and this isn't. You are entitled to your day in court.

You are more clear in this post, than you are in the previous. What's not clear is the circumstances of the case. Did the wrongful arrest take place ? I don't believe so. Were the charges dropped ? Looks like they weren't. So what's to sue for ? Property was taken in connection with a legit arrest. We don't know the details of the plea bargain either. Speculate away

 

[Gunner3456]

You are clear. What's not clear is the circumstances of the case. Did the wrongful arrest take place ? I don't believe so. Were the charges dropped ? Looks like they weren't. So what's to sue for ? Property was taken in connection with a legit arrest. We don't know the details of the plea bargain either. Speculate away

I'm not speculating. I'm making a point of law. The decision would be up to a Federal Court, not you or me.

If he believes "New York" is, and I stress is, violating his US constitutional rights by keeping his gun, or arrested him wrongfully under the US Constitution, he can sue in Federal Court to restore his US Constitutional rights under probably the 4th and 5th Amendments.

Suing never means you'll win, but if he believes that they are guilty of unconstitutional false arrest or unconstitutionally taking and keeping his property under his rights against unreasonable seizure or anything else, he can choose to sue.

My point wasn't whether he would win. That you never know. Do you realize that every time there is a court case, 1/2 of all attorneys lose? I'm glad that airline pilots don't have that failure percentage.

My point was only to rebut the idea that if he sued, he would be subject to New York's laws and courts.

He wouldn't be.

 

[fd15k]

I'm not speculating. I'm making a point of law. The decision would be up to a Federal Court, not you or me.

While that is true, you're also not taking into account recent legal developments and the whole background of the field of law.

If he believes "New York" is, and I stress is, violating his US constitutional rights by keeping his gun, or arrested him wrongfully under the US Constitution, he can sue in Federal Court to restore his US Constitutional rights under probably the 4th and 5th Amendments.

And here you're actually speculating.

Suing never means you'll win, but if he believes that they are guilty of unconstitutional false arrest or unconstitutionally taking and keeping his property under his rights against unreasonable seizure or anything else, he can choose to sue.

Unconstitutional false arrest in this case ? Was there a crime committed ? Yes there was, so the arrest was not false. Were his rights violated during arrest ? I don't believe so, since his lawyer couldn't even get the charges dropped. Unconstitutional could also mean that the law under which he was arrested is unconstitutional, but that as you know the relevant court would have to establish.

And here is an example for you of something that could truly be an unconstitutional false arrest :

Plaintiff MARK AARON HAYNIE was wrongfully arrested for possession of
an Assault Weapon and required to make bail in a state criminal case in
which he was found to be factually innocent. He is associated with and
exercises membership rights in both the THE CALGUNS FOUNDATION,
INC., and THE SECOND AMENDMENT FOUNDATION, INC.

Plaintiff BRENDAN RICHARDS is an honorably discharged United States
Marine who saw combat duty in Iraq. He is associated with and exercises
membership rights in both the THE CALGUNS FOUNDATION, INC., and
THE SECOND AMENDMENT FOUNDATION, INC.

On May 20, 2010, RICHARDS was wrongfully arrested for possession
an Assault Weapon and spent six (6) days in the Sonoma County jail
while his family tried to raise the funds for him to make bail in a state
criminal case which was dismissed. He was factually innocent of the
charges brought.


On August 14, 2011, RICHARDS was wrongfully arrested a second
time for possession of an Assault Weapon and spent four (4) days in
the Sonoma County jail awaiting bail. Again the charges against him
were dismissed. He was factually innocent of the charges brought.3


Plaintiffs HAYNIE and RICHARDS, along with the Institutional Plaintiffs
CALGUNS FOUNDATION, INC., and SECOND AMENDMENT
FOUNDATION, INC., seek declaratory relief that the California Penal Codes

The Motion to Dismiss brought by Defendants Harris and California Department of
Justice was argued on August 5, 2011. Richards' new arrest occurred on August 14, 2011, and
the case was dismissed on September 19, 2011. Plaintiffs immediately brought this new
development to the attention of the Defendants and asked if they would stipulate to a joint
statement informing the Court of this new fact. The Defendants declined that invitation and the
Plaintiff was not aware of any authority for alleging new facts once a Rule 12 motion has been
submitted to the Court. A new case for wrongful arrest is being filed in this Court and a request
to relate the cases will be made at the appropriate time.
Amended Consolidated Complaint
and Regulations defining Assault Weapons are unconstitutionally vague and
ambiguous and therefore result in wrongful arrests and the chilling of a
fundamental right to "keep and bear" arms of ordinary and common design.

Plaintiff BRENDAN RICHARDS also seeks monetary damages and
injunctive relief against the CITY OF ROHNERT PARK and OFFICER
BECKER for unlawful seizure of his person and his firearms.

My point wasn't whether he would win. That you never know. Do you realize that every time there is a court case, 1/2 of all attorneys lose? I'm glad that airline pilots don't have that failure percentage.

My point was only to rebut the idea that if he sued, he would be subject to New York's laws and courts.

He wouldn't be.

His chances of winning in district court are slim to none. There would be a better chance in circuit court if represented by people like SAF, but for case being criminal in nature makes him an undesirable plaintiff. Finally to get the idea of the mood in lower courts look at that New Jersey carry case decided a few days ago.

 

[Gunner3456]

While that is true, you're also not taking into account recent legal developments and the whole background of the field of law.

Wow.

And here you're actually speculating.

Just stating how it is.

Unconstitutional false arrest in this case ? Was there a crime committed ? Yes there was, so the arrest was not false.

It might have been unconstitutional under the US Constitution. He has a right to challenge that.

Were his rights violated during arrest ? I don't believe so, since his lawyer couldn't even get the charges dropped.

What? Maybe they decided it was faster and cheaper to settle out of court without being tagged with a crime. The guy's out of state, stuck, and many people settle when it's faster and cheaper than pursuing a case to the end.

Unconstitutional could also mean that the law under which he was arrested is unconstitutional, but that as you know the relevant court would have to establish.

That's the point.

And here is an example for you of something that could truly be an unconstitutional false arrest :

That's irrelevant. You chose a case where the plaintiff decided his STATE rights under the STATE constitution had been violated so he brought his action in STATE court. If his causes of action had been that his FEDERAL constitutional rights had been violated, it would have gone to FEDERAL court.

His chances of winning in district court are slim to none.

He has as good a chance in Federal (District) court as anyone if he has a valid case. Lots of cases of violations of US constitutional rights have been won in Federal court.

A well-known example of something which the Federal courts took jurisdiction over is Roe v Wade. After working through District, Appellate and the US Supreme Court, the Court ruled that STATE laws against abortion violate a woman's right to privacy under the due process clause in the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

Now every state has to abide by that with certain exceptions spelled out by the SC ruling in Roe v Wade.

There would be a better chance in circuit court if represented by people like SAF, but for case being criminal in nature makes him an undesirable plaintiff. Finally to get the idea of the mood in lower courts look at that New Jersey carry case decided a few days ago.

Do we really want to got there? New Jersey gun issues decided by their state courts?

First, New York doesn't have circuit courts. They have the weirdest method of designating their courts, unlike any other state. Lots of states do call their state courts something different such as "superior" (California for instance) court or something. It's still the state court. We call Oregon's "circuit."

He would have NO chance in state court if his cause of action was a US constitutional issue. The opposing counsel would file a motion for dismissal based on lack of jurisdiction and he would prevail. Only Federal courts have jurisdiction over Federal matters and the instant case would be federal.

In your example, you chose a case where the plaintiff believed a city did something which violated California's constitution, so he properly sued in state (superior) court.

The Federal courts DON'T have jurisdiction over state constitutional matters. They DO have the only jurisdiction over Federal laws and that includes the US constitution.

Again, see Roe v Wade where a woman believed the state was violating her US constitutional rights, and she prevailed in Federal courts and created the current law of the land.

 

[wyattburp]

If this was Fantasy Land and my monkey logic worked, I'd report the gun as stolen to the feds and sic' them on the state for violating my constitutional right to own/possess a firearm by taking my gun away.

In all seriousness, I can only hope this and the other recent event(s) bring light to the problems with New York's gun laws.

 

[fd15k]

...

Dude, I don't know what you're smoking, but here are a few of clarifications.

Richards v. Harris, cited above, is a case filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (SF/OAK) , challenging California State law under US Constitution.

Piszczatoski v. Filko, mentioned above, is a case filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (NJD), challenging New Jersey State law under US Constitution.

Circuit court, mentioned above, is the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

I hope I'm easier to understand now.

 

[Swedish K]

Wasn't there a similar case in the last few years where an individual had checked his firearm legally and his flight was redirected to NYC and a forced layover? I don't recall if it was weather issues or aircraft mechanical issues that caused the change. Either way they landed in NYC and had a layover. Because the flight wasn't supposed to land there in the first place all baggage was returned to the passengers and when he went to check in for the new connection he was arrested for felony possession of a handgun in NYC... Personally I find it criminal for this type of thing to happen. Its on par with arresting someone for drug charges when someone "ruffied" their drink unbeknownst to them.

 

[fd15k]

Wasn't there a similar case in the last few years where an individual had checked his firearm legally and his flight was redirected to NYC and a forced layover? I don't recall if it was weather issues or aircraft mechanical issues that caused the change. Either way they landed in NYC and had a layover. Because the flight wasn't supposed to land there in the first place all baggage was returned to the passengers and when he went to check in for the new connection he was arrested for felony possession of a handgun in NYC... Personally I find it criminal for this type of thing to happen. Its on par with arresting someone for drug charges when someone "ruffied" their drink unbeknownst to them.

That was New Jersey again. Revell v. Port Authority (3d Cir. 2010). Note that the case was different in a way that the person was only transiting through NJ, and relying on FOPA for immunity against NJ laws. It would have worked if his luggage remained out of his reach (stored at the airport).

 

[Gunner3456]

Dude, I don't know what you're smoking, but here are a few of clarifications.

Richards v. Harris, cited above, is a case filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (SF/OAK) , challenging California State law under US Constitution.

Piszczatoski v. Filko, mentioned above, is a case filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (NJD), challenging New Jersey State law under US Constitution.

Circuit court, mentioned above, is the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

I hope I'm easier to understand now.

Sorry I didn't look those up. I started my posts only to point out that if someone wants to challenge a local, even state law or action based on violation of US constitutional law, he must and will do it in Federal Court, and when that happens, he is out of the jurisdiction of the state and he and the state are under the jurisdiction of the Federal Courts. He would be the plaintiff and the state entity would simply be the defendant with no more rights than any other defendant.

That's all I was ever trying to say.

It had been alleged here that New York laws and courts would prevail and I challenged the premise. I stated that complaints involving Federal Law including the US Constitution would be in Federal Court, and that the State and its subdivisions would be under the jurisdiction of Federal Courts, and would be simply "the defendant."

I stand by that and your statement backs it up.

 

[fd15k]

It had been alleged here that New York laws and courts would prevail and I challenged the premise. I stated that complaints involving Federal Law including the US Constitution would be in Federal Court, and that the State and its subdivisions would be under the jurisdiction of Federal Courts, and would be simply "the defendant."

I stand by that and your statement backs it up.

I never alleged state court challenges. All of my statements were made in relation to federal courts. Evidence suggests that no lower federal court will positively decide a 2A challenge. That is in the well-orchestrated cases. And here we got a guy who blatantly violated a law, without any attempt to comply with it (declaring his gun at the counter is not it). I also said there may or may not be other facts suitable for challenges on non-2A grounds, but available information does not allow for analysis.

I'm glad we are clear now

 

[Gunner3456]

I never alleged state court challenges. All of my statements were made in relation to federal courts. Evidence suggests that no lower federal court will positively decide a 2A challenge. That is in the well-orchestrated cases. And here we got a guy who blatantly violated a law, without any attempt to comply with it (declaring his gun at the counter is not it). I also said there may or may not be other facts suitable for challenges on non-2A grounds, but available information does not allow for analysis.

I'm glad we are clear now

We are clear.

Someone early in the thread mentioned things you didn't about jurisdiction and I responded before you posted.

Also, I agree, and didn't mention 2A. The federal courts... ??

However, Federal courts have been friendlier to civil rights such as illegal (federally and constitutionally illegal) searches and seizures and taking of property without probable cause. Even that can't be guaranteed anymore, but that's where I'd go if I was going to challenge it.

I want to remind that I've just been through hell having my rights violated and I spent a long time and a lot of money getting satisfaction. It was hell. I don't recommend it to anyone if he can avoid it. It was worth it to me because it was local (no travel) and it was necessary to shut down unfair allegations by a LEO and to get my CHL back, which I lost for no good reason for 13 months.

It's now back in my wallet and my Glock 23 is strapped on as we speak.

Please be happy for me.

 

[fd15k]

We are clear.

Someone early in the thread mentioned things you didn't about jurisdiction and I responded before you posted.

Also, I agree, and didn't mention 2A. The federal courts... ??

However, Federal courts have been friendlier to civil rights such as illegal (federally and constitutionally illegal) searches and seizures and taking of property without probable cause. Even that can't be guaranteed anymore, but that's where I'd go if I was going to challenge it.

I want to remind that I've just been through hell having my rights violated and I spent a long time and a lot of money getting satisfaction. It was hell. I don't recommend it to anyone if he can avoid it. It was worth it to me because it was local (no travel) and it was necessary to shut down unfair allegations by a LEO and to get my CHL back, which I lost for no good reason for 13 months.

It's now back in my wallet and my Glock 23 is strapped on as we speak.

Please be happy for me.

Yes, I've read and "liked" your story

 

[Gunner3456]

Yes, I've read and "liked" your story

Thanks. It's part of me which will never go away. It changed my er, uh, outlook.