Second Amendment Foundation

[Zerex]

SAF HAILS SUPREME COURT FOR SENDING BACK GUN CASES FOR FURTHER REVIEW - Second Amendment Foundation

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation today hailed the U.S. Supreme Court decision to vacate lower court rulings in several gun rights cases and remand them back to lower courts for review “in light of” last week’s landmark 6-3 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v...

www.saf.org

The SAF said, that the action taken by SCOTUS yesterday, to send 4 major gun cases down to the Circuit Ct of Appeals level, FOR STRICT SCRUTINY re-analysis, to be applied to those cases, is a major ruling.
It includes AWB and Mag limit cases.

NYS's laws will be toast ,sooner than later.

 

[Catskillkid]

SAF HAILS SUPREME COURT FOR SENDING BACK GUN CASES FOR FURTHER REVIEW - Second Amendment Foundation

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation today hailed the U.S. Supreme Court decision to vacate lower court rulings in several gun rights cases and remand them back to lower courts for review “in light of” last week’s landmark 6-3 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v...

www.saf.org

The SAF said, that the action taken by SCOTUS yesterday, to send 4 major gun cases down to the Circuit Ct of Appeals level, FOR STRICT SCRUTINY re-analysis, to be applied to those cases, is a major ruling.
It includes AWB and Mag limit cases.

NYS's laws will be toast ,sooner than later.

I sure hope so. I have agita trying to read through the new CC legislation.

 

[Saltwater60]

SAF HAILS SUPREME COURT FOR SENDING BACK GUN CASES FOR FURTHER REVIEW - Second Amendment Foundation

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation today hailed the U.S. Supreme Court decision to vacate lower court rulings in several gun rights cases and remand them back to lower courts for review “in light of” last week’s landmark 6-3 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v...

www.saf.org

The SAF said, that the action taken by SCOTUS yesterday, to send 4 major gun cases down to the Circuit Ct of Appeals level, FOR STRICT SCRUTINY re-analysis, to be applied to those cases, is a major ruling.
It includes AWB and Mag limit cases.

NYS's laws will be toast ,sooner than later.

I like your enthusiasm. NYS will then ban all semi autos or all magazines. They won’t let this stand.

 

[Cooolone]

@Saltwater60

Yeah, they can do what they want, it's going to be interesting though when the SCOTUS keeps rendering their laws as being unconstitutional...

Maybe they shouldn't have let NY Shitty off the hook when they had the chance to correct behavior then!

So we fall back to examining the fact that SCOTUS has no teeth! But if they keep bitch slapping NY, I'll forgive that, lolz

 

[spat]

@Saltwater60

Yeah, they can do what they want, it's going to be interesting though when the SCOTUS keeps rendering their laws as being unconstitutional...

Maybe they shouldn't have let NY Shitty off the hook when they had the chance to correct behavior then!

So we fall back to examining the fact that SCOTUS has no teeth! But if they keep bitch slapping NY, I'll forgive that, lolz

NY will keep not giving a fuck what SCOTUS says until someone sues government officials for actual monetary damages under the theory that their blatant disregard for SCOTUS rulings has invalidated their immunity.

Once legislators and governors start being held personally responsible, they will finally discover a limit to their power.

Let's hope that happens sooner rather than later, because that is a *lot* less messy than the other way they find their limits.

 

[Acer-m14]

SCOUTS only made up the qualified immunity for LEO (no Duty to Protect) .. correct ??

if yes ..

then the Governor and her staff are not covered .. they have no duty to protect ..

there only duty is to protect NYS from the boarding states ..

 

[STS556]

I thought this new ruling was only for the full carrying of handguns so maybe I missed something, but will we soon be able to have full featured standard mag AR's here is NY?

 

[Carlos Hathcock]

NY will keep not giving a fuck what SCOTUS says until someone sues government officials for actual monetary damages under the theory that their blatant disregard for SCOTUS rulings has invalidated their immunity.

Once legislators and governors start being held personally responsible, they will finally discover a limit to their power.

Let's hope that happens sooner rather than later, because that is a *lot* less messy than the other way they find their limits.

I don't give a damn about monetary damages. I want to see people being tried, convicted, sentenced, and doing some SERIOUS jail time in a place that makes hell look like doggy day care with no chance of parole. It's time to put some consequential teeth back into people making decisions like this.

 

[Truebeliever]

SCOUTS only made up the qualified immunity for LEO (no Duty to Protect) .. correct ??

if yes ..

then the Governor and her staff are not covered .. they have no duty to protect ..

there only duty is to protect NYS from the boarding states ..

You misunderstand qualified immunity. It has nothing to do with duty to protect one way for the other.
Qualified immunity is when the government official was acting within their role.
For example, a woman on the street screams and points at someone claiming he raped her last week. The police come. They hold the accused man as they investigate. They find out the woman made a police report for rape last week. The police arrest the man based on probable cause of the point out by the rape victim. Later, a DNA test proves the man is not the rapist. The man is innocent, Qualified immunity protects the cops from lawsuits because they acted within their scope despite the woman being wrong.
That’s qualified immunity.

Cops get sued all the time. Cops aren’t sued for the use of force.That’s within the scope. They are sued for excessive force with the claim it was outside of that scope

 

[Acer-m14]

You misunderstand qualified immunity. It has nothing to do with duty to protect one way for the other.
Qualified immunity is when the government official was acting within their role.
For example, a woman on the street screams and points at someone claiming he raped her last week. The police come. They hold the accused man as they investigate. They find out the woman made a police report for rape last week. The police arrest the man based on probable cause of the point out by the rape victim. Later, a DNA test proves the man is not the rapist. The man is innocent, Qualified immunity protects the cops from lawsuits because they acted within their scope despite the woman being wrong.
That’s qualified immunity.

Cops get sued all the time. Cops aren’t sued for the use of force.That’s within the scope. They are sued for excessive force with the claim it was outside of that scope

yeah .. but didn't the qualified immunity come from the cops can't be there the second there needed .. there 5 mins away ..

 

[Truebeliever]

yeah .. but didn't the qualified immunity come from the cops can't be there the second there needed .. there 5 mins away ..

Nope. Different case. The case where “ the police aren’t obligated to protect “ case is not where qualified immunity comes from.
And the above case is not what people think it is. In the case, two rapist got into the building . Raped her. Her roommates ( technically a different apartment)heard it and called 911. They hid then climbed out the window onto the roof of the adjacent building . The police came. No one answered the door. They didn’t hear anything . The roommates were hiding . They didn’t call out for help. Nothing to say it wasn’t the crank calls they get every night. The police left. The roommates climbed back into their bulging and the rapists found the roommates. Raped them.
The roommates sued the police for not guessing what was going on inside and protecting them.

Another case with an order of protection, the police were contacted by a woman who claimed her ex took the kids but kept them longer than the court allowed visitation. She told them he said he was taking them to Denver. Later he shows up at that police station, and has a shootout there with the police. The kids were dead in the car. She sued the the police for not protecting her kids.
There is no general duty to prevent people from becoming victims. That’s the meaning of that case.
There are times that a special relationship is created where the police must protect someone. For example , the police handcuff someone. The mob want revenge and attack . Because he is in police custody, the police must protect him.
There was a victim of domestic violence. The police in that state were obligated to offer her a battered woman’s shelter ( give her a ride there but didn’t). The perpetrator returned after the police left and assaulted her. The police has a special duty and we’re successfully sued

 

[spat]

You misunderstand qualified immunity. It has nothing to do with duty to protect one way for the other.
Qualified immunity is when the government official was acting within their role.
For example, a woman on the street screams and points at someone claiming he raped her last week. The police come. They hold the accused man as they investigate. They find out the woman made a police report for rape last week. The police arrest the man based on probable cause of the point out by the rape victim. Later, a DNA test proves the man is not the rapist. The man is innocent, Qualified immunity protects the cops from lawsuits because they acted within their scope despite the woman being wrong.
That’s qualified immunity.

Cops get sued all the time. Cops aren’t sued for the use of force.That’s within the scope. They are sued for excessive force with the claim it was outside of that scope

Shouldn't be qualified immunity, nobody else gets qualified immunity just because they were doing their job within the accepted professional standards.

That's why Doctors have to carry massive malpractice insurance.

That should just be "winning the lawsuit". Our tort system is completely messed up in that the winner of such a lawsuit suffers so much.

The solution for the government seems to be "we know the system is a train wreck, but we don't care because we just exempt the government from the worst of it"

In the example you cited the cops had probable cause of a real crime. That means they did nothing wrong. They should just win, not be immune. And winning should not be painful.

Now, the person who pointed the wrong guy our, she should be liable for damages for everything that happened to the poor guy dragged into that, but she is likely "judgement proof".

Where I have a major problem is when cops arrest people for doing things that aren't even a crime, and then hide behind qualified immunity because they *thought* they were a crime.

Nope, that's bullshit. It was your mistake, not the guy you arrested, you should suffer for it not him.

Get rid of qualified immunity, pay cops enough to afford malpractice insurance like doctors, and fix the GD tort system so that people who win lawsuits aren't punished for just being dragged into them.