This ruling doesn't cover the whole state, only that Fed. district.
District Attorney: SAFE Act ammunition provision remains intact in CNY despite Federal judge?s ruling - LocalSYR.com powered by NewsChannel 9 WSYR Syracuse
HK USP compact .45
And other non-HK, But they don't count! :D
Sparkplugs are irrelevant.
Plenty of HK's and clones.
The Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution as placing some additional restrictions on the federal courts. For example, the doctrines of mootness, ripeness, and standing prohibit district courts from issuing advisory opinions. Other doctrines, such as the abstention doctrine and the Rooker-Feldman doctrine limit the power of lower federal courts to disturb rulings made by state courts. The Erie doctrine requires federal courts to apply substantive state law to claims arising from state law (which may be heard in federal courts under supplemental or diversity jurisdiction). In difficult cases, the federal courts must either guess as to how a court of that state would decide the issue or, if that state accepts certified questions from federal courts when state law is unclear or uncertain, ask an appellate court of that state to decide the issue.
Notably, the only federal court that can issue proclamations of federal law that bind state courts is the Supreme Court itself. Decisions of the lower federal courts, whether on issues of federal law or state law (i.e., the question was not certified to a state court), are persuasive but not binding authority in the states in which those federal courts sit.
First, higher courts bind lower courts within their particular state or circuit. With the exception of the U.S. Supreme Court, courts of appeals and state courts do not bind courts outside the state or circuit in which they are located. That is, a federal Supreme Court decision is mandatory on all lower federal courts, both courts of appeals and district courts. A federal circuit decision is mandatory on all federal courts within its circuit, but not federal courts in other circuits. For example, a 9th Circuit decision binds the U.S. district courts within the 9th Circuit, but not federal courts in any other circuit. However, a district court or trial court decision would not bind higher courts. A state supreme court decision is mandatory on all appeals courts and trial courts in that state, but not on state courts in other states, and a state court of appeals’ decision binds state trial courts in that state.
Second, federal courts usually bind only other federal courts, not state courts. Similarly, state courts usually bind only other state courts. Thus, a decision by the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, a federal court, mandatory on federal courts within the boundaries of the Ninth Circuit. It is not mandatory on California state courts, even though California is geographically within the Ninth Circuit. Similarly, a California Supreme Court decision would bind other California state courts, but not the Ninth Circuit or other state courts (like Nevada state courts).
Finally, federal courts bind other federal courts only when they interpret and apply federal law while state courts bind other state courts only when they interpret and apply state law. Sometimes a federal court must apply a state’s law. In that case, the state’s interpretation of that law is mandatory on the federal court. Even so, the federal court can still decide whether the state’s interpretation is consistent with federal law. Similarly, state courts must sometimes decide issues of federal law, but they are not bound by federal courts except the U.S. Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court, a federal court, is mandatory on state courts when it decides an issue of federal law, such as Constitutional interpretation. Other federal courts—district and appellate—are not mandatory on state courts
A little learning can do strange things. If I may ask--where are you licensed and where did you study constitutional law?
The Federal Western District Court did not examine federal law--it examined a state law (the NY SAFE Act)--and based upon complaints in a suit that that state law was contrary to the federal constitution, found that the seven-in-ten provision was unconstitutional. This sentence bears no reasonable relationship to the material you highlighted in red from Wikipedia.
In the second paragraph, you are again making some assumptions that are not present in the instant case. Judge Skretney's ruling that the seven-in-ten portion on the NY SAFE Act was violative of the federal constitution is a pronouncement affecting a state law--which state law is binding throughout NY. The only way that Skretney's finding would be limited to his Western District would be if a case involving the legality of the seven-in-ten provision had already been heard by NY's highest state court and not held unconstitutional--something which has not yet occurred. Also, none of the other federal district courts in NY have made a finding regarding the seven-in-ten portion of the NY SAFE Act; therefore, none of the federal districts are in conflict. As there is no conflict of sovereigns here, and no disagreement between the federal districts within NY, the Western District's ruling takes effect throughout the entire state.
The paragraphs you cite on federalism in the courts are inapposite.
Give the following a read: http://www.scopeny.org/ARCHIVES/SCOP...2020130104.pdf
Last edited by diesel1959; 01-09-2014 at 10:28 PM.
Yet you regurgitate a letter from The Shooter’s Committee on Political Education…Really?
Look, I don't want to get into a pissing match here. The fact of the matter is… if a NY DA decides to jam people up on this, then that is what they will do until this is settled.
We'll just have to agree to disagree, meanwhile I'll still suggest to error on the side of caution (to stay out of the NY costly court system) untill this is settled.
Last edited by NFD9; 01-09-2014 at 11:21 PM.
I figured you'd like a link to read as well, so I dug around to find the SCOPE story that I'd red a couple days ago. Some don't know that I've been licensed to the bar for over twenty years--a good while before I ever became a law enforcement officer. ;)
If a NY DA decides to try to jam up somebody, there's not a lot that any of us can do until the matter hits a court room. That's how our system works. Do you think that DAs have never overstepped before? However, when (if) they do, there are corrective measures in place. Now, if a NY DA opts to go forward with a new prosecution brought based upon the stricken provision where the crime alleged has been committed AFTER the law has been stricken, then there are some pretty grievous consequences ahead for that prosecutor and the cases themselves will be unsustainable.
Last edited by diesel1959; 01-10-2014 at 12:14 AM.
It would be nice if laws were read BEFORE they were passed.