Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 09-25-2019, 08:46 PM
BigT's Avatar
BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 36,584
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
You know, he's right.

Look, if they wanna ban the sale of AR15s, that's their right (It wont do actually anything significant but it will make them feel better). And if they wanna expand this to kits- that's their right also. But pass a fucking law, dont sneak in around the back door.
The "back door" is trying to get around laws against selling an item by requiring the buyer to assemble said item upon arrival.

Normally we don't consider items that require assembly to be separate from the assembled item for the purposes of sale. If you have a law against explosives, then a kit to make the explosives is also illegal, for example.

It's even true in common language: do you tell someone who claims they bought their table from IKEA that they are wrong and that they really bought a kit to build a table? No, the fact they had to assemble it themselves doesn't change the fact that they bought a table from IKEA.

Even in prohibition, when they would sell wine kits, they at the very least tried the legal fiction of telling people that they shouldn't use it for that purpose. These companies are blatantly admitting their purpose is to sell guns that haven't been assembled.

What these people are doing is selling prohibited guns, publicly advertising they are selling prohibited guns, and encouraging the illegal activity of manufacturing prohibited guns. Why should this require a special law to stop?
  #52  
Old 09-25-2019, 08:55 PM
BigT's Avatar
BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 36,584
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
Understood, but what if instead the ad said that this new kit would allow you to get into YOUR own house in the event you lose your key. Or it could be used to start a business whereas you open peoples doors for a fee, but OTOH, it could also be used to break in to others houses.
Then it becomes a manner of determining the intent. If the state can prove you are actually selling them for the intent of breaking the law, then you would also be breaking the law. However, doing so is much less straightforward.

This is the reason why I believe those cheeky prohibition era kits, which had "Don't do this as it will make wine, and that is illegal" statements, were never prosecuted. It's not that they couldn't have proven it, but that it would take time and resources better spent on stopping all the other ways alcohol was illegally trafficked.

But it's possible such language is enough. Too bad these companies already showed their hand by saying their kits were for making prohibited guns. They thus admitted their purpose was to sell unassembled guns. So I doubt any fig leaf "warning" would suffice.

Last edited by BigT; 09-25-2019 at 08:56 PM.
  #53  
Old 09-25-2019, 09:39 PM
slash2k is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 2,433
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
In the car dealer case, assume it's a similar generic car transportation service.
Ok, a generic car transportation service operating in Michigan is expected to know Michigan laws, which means a reputable company is either going to refuse to deliver an item they know is illegal at the delivery address or is going to require you to idemnify them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
And really I'm just asking the question - if individual states can do this, why should the courts in the other state, or the Federal government, respect their laws?
"Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state." --U.S. Constitution, Article 4, Section 1

If the New York courts render a judgment affecting people or companies subject to the jurisdiction of the New York court system (as defined by New York law), the courts in other states are generally bound to respect it, with very few and limited exceptions. In particular, "you could not get that judgment under Texas law" is NOT one of the exceptions. The Texas courts will respect it because Texas expects the New York courts to respect Texas judgments; that's how the federal system works.
  #54  
Old 09-25-2019, 09:41 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,557
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
... Too bad these companies already showed their hand by saying their kits were for making prohibited guns. ...
The companies never said that.
  #55  
Old 09-25-2019, 09:43 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,557
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
... What these people are doing is selling prohibited guns, publicly advertising they are selling prohibited guns, and encouraging the illegal activity of manufacturing prohibited guns.
No they are not. None of these things you claim are true.
  #56  
Old 09-25-2019, 09:53 PM
Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 82,442
Okay, I'm confused. According to the link in the OP:

Quote:
State Attorney General Letitia James announced today that she has ordered 16 websites to immediately stop selling “ghost guns” - kits of firearms components that allow buyers to assembly of assault weapons.

The possession, manufacture and sale of assault weapons is illegal in New York, but these companies have been providing the means to violate the state’s assault weapons ban, James said in an news release.
It seems reasonable that a law prohibiting the possession, manufacturing, or sale of an assault weapon would also cover a kit for making an assault weapon. What else are you going to do with a build-your-own-assault-weapon kit besides build your own assault weapon? What does the OP think these kits are for if it's not manufacturing assault weapons?
  #57  
Old 09-25-2019, 09:57 PM
Cleophus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 1,384
The point being lost by posters here, and deliberately obfuscated by the NY AG, is that an AR-15 80% lower is usable in the manufacture of legal firearms. It is factually untrue that an 80% lower can only be used to manufacture an illegal firearm.

This is an example of a NY-legal AR-15. It looks a bit weird because the factors that make a rifle an "assault weapon" in NY are a pistol grip and/or muzzle device (ex. flash suppressor, compensator) and/or collapsible stock. A rifle without those features is not restricted. It is legal to build one yourself, whether with a pre-manufactured receiver (legally a firearm) or a receiver you make yourself (like from an 80% kit).

Last edited by Cleophus; 09-25-2019 at 10:02 PM.
  #58  
Old 09-25-2019, 10:47 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,194
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
The "back door" is trying to get around laws against selling an item by requiring the buyer to assemble said item upon arrival.

Normally we don't consider items that require assembly to be separate from the assembled item for the purposes of sale. If you have a law against explosives, then a kit to make the explosives is also illegal, for example.
...
What these people are doing is selling prohibited guns, publicly advertising they are selling prohibited guns, and encouraging the illegal activity of manufacturing prohibited guns. Why should this require a special law to stop?
Because- we live in a Democracy. Once in a while Politicians leave a loophole in a law. When someone runs in and uses that loophole what they are doing is perfectly legal, even if ethically shady. All the Politicians have to do is fill the loophole. If they dont want to, then the loophole remains open. The NY State legislature could fill this loophole in one day. Why havent they?

We dont allow government by fiat- this is why we dont like trump and his attempts to do so.

So until the Legislature fixes the law, the loophole remains open. If you dont like it, write them.
  #59  
Old 09-25-2019, 10:51 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,194
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
...


It seems reasonable that a law prohibiting the possession, manufacturing, or sale of an assault weapon would also cover a kit for making an assault weapon....
It is reasonable. But it doesn't. So rather than the AG making up laws, why doesn't the Legislature just fix that little loophole?
  #60  
Old 09-26-2019, 12:06 AM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,557
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
Okay, I'm confused. According to the link in the OP:



It seems reasonable that a law prohibiting the possession, manufacturing, or sale of an assault weapon would also cover a kit for making an assault weapon. What else are you going to do with a build-your-own-assault-weapon kit besides build your own assault weapon? What does the OP think these kits are for if it's not manufacturing assault weapons?
The kit isn't "for making an assault weapon". The kit is for making a NY-legal rifle. It's literally an 80% lower receiver and a jig for completing it. Once you've got a 100% complete lower, you can add additional parts to turn it into a functional, and perfectly-legal-in-NY rifle.
  #61  
Old 09-27-2019, 11:20 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 22,857
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cleophus View Post
It is factually untrue that an 80% lower can only be used to manufacture an illegal firearm.
AFAICT, nowhere is anybody claiming that the sellers being leaned on by the NY AG's office are selling materials that "can only be used" to manufacture an illegal firearm. What the cease-and-desist letter is claiming is that these materials "are intended for" manufacturing illegal firearms.

If that is what they are intended for, and if it's illegal in NY to sell or purchase them with that intention (neither of which conditions I personally have any certain knowledge about), then I don't see that the AG's office is out of line in demanding that they not be sold to New Yorkers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka
The kit is for making a NY-legal rifle.
Well, that seems to be one of the points that's in dispute. After all, it is not unheard-of for manufacturers to claim one purpose for a product while clearly winking at a different purpose (see, e.g., Prohibition-era concentrated grape-juice "bricks" containing insincere warnings about how to avoid letting them ferment into wine).

Last edited by Kimstu; 09-27-2019 at 11:20 PM.
  #62  
Old 09-28-2019, 07:24 AM
Cleophus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 1,384
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
If that is what they are intended for, and if it's illegal in NY to sell or purchase them with that intention (neither of which conditions I personally have any certain knowledge about), then I don't see that the AG's office is out of line in demanding that they not be sold to New Yorkers.
How does the NY AG know they are intended for illegal firearms manufacture? The cease-and-desist offers no evidence the kit manufacturers intend them for illegal purposes. They did not present any sting operations yielding comments saying "this would be make a great machine gun" or "this is perfect for a hit" or anything like that. Just an assertion. If there were evidence, there would be prosecution, not a letter.

Quote:
Well, that seems to be one of the points that's in dispute.
I don't understand how this can be disputed. I posted an example of an NY-legal AR-15. Here is its product page from a major firearms manufacturer: Ruger NY-legal AR-556, maybe I should have added that too to reinforce that it's a mainstream product. There is no federal law that makes it illegal to manufacture a firearm for personal use, and no NY law restricting that. I don't know why you think the Prohibition example is relevant. It was universally illegal to make alcoholic beverages at that time. It is not illegal to make or own an AR-15 in NY. Why do you think 80% lowers are only used for illegal purposes?
  #63  
Old 09-28-2019, 07:34 AM
Cleophus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 1,384
Also, it is interesting that the C&D partially quotes the NY assault weapons law regarding how "assault weapon" is defined by things like pistol grips and stocks, but these are not part of a lower receiver. This is an 80% lower: Note the filled in areas in the rear that have to be machined out by the end user. That is what makes it an "80%" lower and not a firearm yet (80% is just a popular descriptor, BTW. The ATF defines the firearm/not firearm threshold by ability to receive a trigger group and hammer, not by counting machining steps). If the alleged illegal product depends on the end user's choice of accessories not supplied to determine the legality of the final result, doesn't it weaken claims of intent?

Last edited by Cleophus; 09-28-2019 at 07:34 AM.
  #64  
Old 09-29-2019, 03:26 AM
Brayne Ded is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 431
It's back to the endless matter of gun control and ways to evade restrictions on certain weapons. Ultimately, it boils down to just one question; if you are assembling a weapon, then the weapon should be registered, which means that it must comply with any local laws. Or at least, that is the European point of view, requiring registration and permits. The issue here is that you are creating a gun out of parts, and if I understand correctly, one that can also bypass any restrictions on automatic fire. The other point is that the gun does not have a serial number. Of course, the more skilled can make their own gun out of parts, my understanding is that a simple submachine gun can be cobbled together by anyone with a well equipped workshop, although the magazines are the hard part. You could make such a homebrew weapon anywhere, in the USA or Europe, but in the latter case it would be illegal evan as a collection of parts, let alone when assembled.
  #65  
Old 09-29-2019, 04:08 AM
Corry El is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 3,883
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brayne Ded View Post
It's back to the endless matter of gun control and ways to evade restrictions on certain weapons. Ultimately, it boils down to just one question; if you are assembling a weapon, then the weapon should be registered, which means that it must comply with any local laws. Or at least, that is the European point of view, requiring registration and permits. The issue here is that you are creating a gun out of parts, and if I understand correctly, one that can also bypass any restrictions on automatic fire. The other point is that the gun does not have a serial number. Of course, the more skilled can make their own gun out of parts, my understanding is that a simple submachine gun can be cobbled together by anyone with a well equipped workshop, although the magazines are the hard part. You could make such a homebrew weapon anywhere, in the USA or Europe, but in the latter case it would be illegal evan as a collection of parts, let alone when assembled.
Doesn't really boil down simply to anything, because in virtually all the relevant cases the local laws are against new sale and purchase of the weapons in question. In virtually every case weapons legally bought before the 'ban' are still legal. In some cases of state laws now there are requirements to register 'grandfathered' semiautomatic 'assault weapons', for example in CA, but not in NY.

So if the state (not to mention US federal govt) can't push through a law which comprehensively bans the weapon itself, but only bans selling/buying them, it's always going to be a matter of interpretation what constitutes selling one, what exact gun, and whether parts count. If the law were basically different than what it is...the issue would be different.

You mention automatic weapons which are not relevant to the case in question because those are subject US federal laws which require registration and strict licensing that results in relatively very few such weapons legally possessed as compared to the far larger number of semiautomatic rifles covered under the political moniker 'assault weapons'. It's just illegal to convert legal semi-automatic weapons into automatic everywhere in the US, and there's no live* issue of constitutionality there. The federal BATF makes regulations against commercial production and sale of particular semiautomatic weapons the BATF deems too easy to convert to automatic, and that involves some of the same jargon about receivers, trigger groups and so forth, but that's not the issue in the NY AG action.

*internet 'constitutional scholars' can always posit that any gun law 'should' be found unconstitutional in the US but as a practical matter the National Firearms Act of 1934 and later *automatic* weapons laws haven't been successfully legally challenged over a long period.

Last edited by Corry El; 09-29-2019 at 04:10 AM.
  #66  
Old 09-29-2019, 04:56 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,194
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brayne Ded View Post
It's back to the endless matter of gun control and ways to evade restrictions on certain weapons. Ultimately, it boils down to just one question; if you are assembling a weapon, then the weapon should be registered, which means that it must comply with any local laws. Or at least, that is the European point of view, requiring registration and permits. ...
Every euro nation?

Anyway, while all that is nice, and may be the law in Luxemburg, it is NOT the law in New York. That's the whole point. Under current NY laws, these parts and the guns from them are totally legal. It's a loophole, sure, and the legislature could close it in a day. They have not seen fit to do so. Thus the AG is making up his own laws.

You can argue it should be illegal, but it's NOT illegal.
  #67  
Old 09-29-2019, 08:33 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 22,857
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cleophus
I don't understand how this can be disputed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Under current NY laws, these parts and the guns from them are totally legal.
Re-quoting, again, the relevant parts of the NY AG's cease-and-desist letter complaining about
Quote:
[...] the sale and advertisement to residents of New York of unfinished lower receivers and firearms components that are intended for the assembly of assault weapons, as defined by New York State law. N.Y. Pen. L. § 265.00(22). Assault weapons are illegal in New York, and the sale and/or advertisement of these products violates New York law. [...]

New York law criminalizes the possession, manufacture, sale, and transportation of assault weapons, which are defined as any semiautomatic rifle that can accept a detachable magazine and has at least one of several enumerated secondary characteristics, including a pistol grip or a stock that folds, telescopes, or bears a thumbhole. N.Y. Pen. L. §§ 265.00(22); 265.02(7); 265.10(1)–(3). Yet those are precisely the purposes of the products that your website(s) appear to offer for sale to New Yorkers. [...]

These sales also contravene New York’s consumer protection statutes, which prohibit “repeated fraudulent or illegal acts” as well as “deceptive acts or practices” or “[f]alse advertising in the conduct of any business, trade or commerce.” N.Y. Exec. L. § 63(12); N.Y. Gen. Bus. L. §§ 349, 350.
You can argue with the AG's office all you want about whether the assertions made in the letter are true, and as I have pointed out several times before, IANAL and have no personal knowledge of the legal issues involved. But it seems pretty obvious that if the AG's office is saying that something is illegal and some other people are saying it isn't, then its legality is disputed.
  #68  
Old 09-29-2019, 10:52 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,856
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
Re-quoting, again, the relevant parts of the NY AG's cease-and-desist letter complaining about
But there's no evidence that sellers are advertising their product intended for the assembly of illegal weapons. The AG could write a similar letter to Amazon telling the to cease providing aid to terrorists by selling them books that facilitates terrorism.

I hope they hash it out in court, and the residents of NY through their tax dollars pay the legal fees of the sellers so they can sell more weapons into the state of NY.
  #69  
Old 09-29-2019, 11:47 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,194
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
Re-quoting, again, the relevant parts of the NY AG's cease-and-desist letter complaining about


You can argue with the AG's office all you want about whether the assertions made in the letter are true, and as I have pointed out several times before, IANAL and have no personal knowledge of the legal issues involved. But it seems pretty obvious that if the AG's office is saying that something is illegal and some other people are saying it isn't, then its legality is disputed.
The NY AG's wouldnt have to issue a cease-and-desist letter if the law was clear. They'd just arrest people.

The law isnt clear, and it could be cleared in one day- why hasnt the legislature taken that day?
  #70  
Old 09-30-2019, 01:49 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 22,857
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
The NY AG's wouldnt have to issue a cease-and-desist letter if the law was clear. They'd just arrest people.
Really? You're arguing that cease-and-desist letters are sent out by an attorney general only when the issue is too legally dubious to justify filing suit? That seems very implausible.

Because AFAIK, plenty of AG cease-and-desist letters are followed up by filing suit if the recipient doesn't comply. Case in point: the NJ AG's lawsuit against a company that ignored a cease-and-desist letter about selling large-capacity magazines to NJ customers.

While I personally can't pronounce on the legal merits of the NY AG's position (as I believe I've mentioned before), I'm not at all persuaded by your attempt to argue that they wouldn't even have sent a cease-and-desist letter if their position was valid. AFAICT from the letter, the targeted recipients have five days to explain, if they choose, why they think no enforcement action should be taken against them; but that doesn't necessarily mean that no valid justification for taking enforcement action against them exists.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone
But there's no evidence that sellers are advertising their product intended for the assembly of illegal weapons.
AFAICT (and again, IANAL), the AG's letter seems to be cautioning the sellers that they are not taking adequate measures to disclaim such an intention:
Quote:
Any misrepresentation or omission on your website that it is a criminal offense under New York State law to manufacture and/or possess assault weapons—the very purpose for which those products are intended and designed—is a deceptive trade practice that may subject you to disgorgement of all income resulting from such fraudulent and illegal practice, restitution to consumers, and penalties of up to $5,000 for each individual violation [...]
You seem to be arguing that since the items in question can also be used to make legal weapons, then they're obviously not intended for the purpose of making illegal ones. This is the part that's reminding me a bit of Prohibition-era sellers of grape-juice concentrate being shocked, shocked! at the insinuation that anybody might be using their totally legal product to manufacture any illegal beverage.
  #71  
Old 09-30-2019, 02:25 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,856
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post

AFAICT (and again, IANAL), the AG's letter seems to be cautioning the sellers that they are not taking adequate measures to disclaim such an intention:

You seem to be arguing that since the items in question can also be used to make legal weapons, then they're obviously not intended for the purpose of making illegal ones. This is the part that's reminding me a bit of Prohibition-era sellers of grape-juice concentrate being shocked, shocked! at the insinuation that anybody might be using their totally legal product to manufacture any illegal beverage.
That's not my read. The AG is not cautioning about not taking adequate measures - the letter states even sellers stating that manufacture of an assault weapon is illegal, or any other additional communications prohibiting illegal conduct is not sufficient to overcome the AG's presumption that the website has the intent to sell illegal weapons.

Here's an example that is similar. In CA, it is currently illegal to buy, or import into the state any magazine that can hold more than 10 rounds. In NV, there isn't a limit on the size of magazines individuals can purchase. As neighboring states, this creates an opportunity for unscrupulous people to purchase a legal magazine in NV and bring it across the border into CA. There are even stores like Bass Pro Shops that are in NV, but pretty close to the border. Should stores in NV be prevented from selling magazines to people who go into their stores?

Bass Pro Shops goes even further. They ask for ID before selling the magazines, and if you are a CA resident, they will not sell to you. This isn't required, but they do it anyways to help customers comply with the law. That is what the NY gun sellers are doing. They are selling a legal product, but they are warning people to only use it in the way it was intended, to comply with the law. But that is not enough for the AG. Apparently even the potential for illegal activity is equivalent to engaging in that illegal activity.
  #72  
Old 09-30-2019, 02:38 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 22,857
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
That is what the NY gun sellers are doing. They are selling a legal product, but they are warning people to only use it in the way it was intended, to comply with the law.
Which sellers are you referring to? AFAIK the NY AG's office did not disclose the identities of the recipients of the cease-and-desist letters, but is claiming that they are not adequately warning customers to comply with the law:
Quote:
New York's Attorney General issued a cease and desist order Monday to more than a dozen websites [...]

A spokesman for the Attorney General's Office said the names of the sites are being withheld [...]

The [cease-and-desist] order accuses the websites of fraudulent business practices for selling to New Yorkers and failing to notify that purchasing an assault weapon in New York is illegal and could result in prison time or fines.

"The sale of such products to New Yorkers gravely endangers the public welfare by promoting the possession of illegal weapons and obstructing law enforcement investigations into the misuse of these weapons, and constitutes a criminal offense under New York State law," the order reads.

Under the order, the sites have five days to show why they should not face enforcement actions from the state, which could include a fine of $5,000 for each transaction completed.

The sites were also ordered to preserve all records pertaining to the sale of the lower receivers.
  #73  
Old 09-30-2019, 02:49 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,856
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
Which sellers are you referring to? AFAIK the NY AG's office did not disclose the identities of the recipients of the cease-and-desist letters, but is claiming that they are not adequately warning customers to comply with the law:
That's not what the letter says, kinda. It may say that, but the part you quoted also basically says that no amount of warning is sufficient. You quoted that part:

Quote:
Any misrepresentation or omission on your
website that it is a criminal offense under New York State law to manufacture and/or possess
assault weapons—the very purpose for which those products are intended and designed—is a
deceptive trade practice that may subject you to disgorgement of all income resulting from such
fraudulent and illegal practice, restitution to consumers, and penalties of up to $5,000 for each
individual violation of Article 22-A of New York’s General Business Law
This means it doesn't matter how much people are cautioned against engaging in illegal acts, because the presumption is that the very purpose for which those products are intended and designed is illegal. Of course, that's clearly false and the AG is wrong.

Any seller of an 80% lower is going to be very clear on the legality of the product, and how it may, and may not be used. No seller is going to encourage illegal behavior - it results in massive fines, loss of license, and federal prison. You're right, there is no specific seller listed. If you could find any seller that encouraged illegal activity, then they should be shut down and prosecuted. 80% lowers are not illegal - they aren't even firearms.
  #74  
Old 09-30-2019, 03:14 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 22,857
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
Of course, that's clearly false and the AG is wrong.
Hmmm. If so, it sounds as though it would be easy for the companies targeted by the cease-and-desist letter to provide valid reasons why enforcement action against them is not warranted.

I mean, what we've got at this point is evidently a matter of opinion where the NY AG's office is unambiguously claiming that they have valid legal grounds for requiring the unidentified sellers to cease and desist their marketing and selling of these items to NY customers, and you clearly believe that the NY AG's office is deliberately making unjustified claims to pressure the sellers into desisting from legal activities that they have no valid grounds for prosecuting.

Absent a better-informed legal opinion competently explaining for the lay mind the relevant jurisprudential details (which for all I know may not even exist yet until and unless such a case is actually heard by a NY court), we are now in "Uh-huh/Nuh-uh" territory, where I have no way of determining whether your opinion is more correct than the NY AG's or vice versa (did I mention that IANAL?).

Last edited by Kimstu; 09-30-2019 at 03:15 PM.
  #75  
Old 09-30-2019, 04:32 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,856
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
Hmmm. If so, it sounds as though it would be easy for the companies targeted by the cease-and-desist letter to provide valid reasons why enforcement action against them is not warranted.
I suppose they could await their day in court, because there is nothing that requires the AG to be responsive to valid reasons. Even if the targets of these letters are 100% in the clear, this type of action by the AG could be burdensome. This is similar to a SLAAP lawsuit, where the goal is harassment or to get the targeted through burdensome legal expense.

For a target of SLAAP litigation, would you also be sanguine saying that it would be easy for the target to demonstrate their speech is actually protected?
  #76  
Old 09-30-2019, 05:05 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 22,857
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
For a target of SLAAP litigation, would you also be sanguine saying that it would be easy for the target to demonstrate their speech is actually protected?
Well, I don't know if I've mentioned it already, but IANAL. If somebody asserted definitively that the plaintiff in a SLAAP case was making charges that were legally groundless, then I'd be inclined to think it sounded as though it would be easy for the defendant to provide valid reasons why their speech is actually protected.

Of course, providing valid reasons is not automatically the same thing as winning your case, and of course, an AG's office cease-and-desist letter is not the same thing as a SLAAP lawsuit. We're back in the same territory of opinion where you opine that the AG's office is wrong, and the AG's office appears to think they're not wrong, and I have no way of independently determining the legal rights of the matter. On account of not being a lawyer, and all.
  #77  
Old 09-30-2019, 05:13 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,856
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
Well, I don't know if I've mentioned it already, but IANAL. If somebody asserted definitively that the plaintiff in a SLAAP case was making charges that were legally groundless, then I'd be inclined to think it sounded as though it would be easy for the defendant to provide valid reasons why their speech is actually protected.
It sounds like it'd be easy for the defendant, but it's not. The evidence is the various states that have passed anti-SLAAP legislation. They did this because it's actually not easy to provide valid reasons, at least not economically. Could be the same thing here. You have the AG of NY, vs a small manufacturer that could employ like 18 people. I wonder who has more resources to withstand litigation.
  #78  
Old 09-30-2019, 05:22 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 22,857
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
The evidence is the various states that have passed anti-SLAAP legislation. They did this because it's actually not easy to provide valid reasons, at least not economically.
I think you're mixing up "providing valid reasons" with "winning your case because of your valid reasons", which I explicitly tried to distinguish between.
  #79  
Old 09-30-2019, 06:25 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,194
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
Hmmm. If so, it sounds as though it would be easy for the companies targeted by the cease-and-desist letter to provide valid reasons why enforcement action against them is not warranted.
Clearly there are differences of opinion, and the AG isnt going to write a letter that sez: "It could be that..."- so again I ask, why doesnt the NY Legislature just close the loophole?
  #80  
Old 09-30-2019, 06:37 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,856
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
I think you're mixing up "providing valid reasons" with "winning your case because of your valid reasons", which I explicitly tried to distinguish between.
It doesn't make any difference. The goal is to harass and cost these companies money. You seem to be avoiding the merits, avoiding the reasoning, and assuming that the AG has positive intent. That's fine since it probably fits your thinking on the matter. But if you understand the purpose of a SLAAP lawsuit, it should be pretty clear the potential for abuse here.

Here's a site that received one of the AG letters. When you look at one of these items, this is what is stated on the page:
Quote:
Shipping Restrictions
Shipping of various parts and/or accessories are prohibited to states and locales (ie New Jersey, California, New York, etc…) with restrictions against certain parts and/or accessories or “assault weapons” (i.e. states with high-capacity magazine restrictions, manufacturing of semi-automatic weapons, etc..). It is your responsibility to be aware of your local firearms laws before purchasing from our website or machining a firearm. We try our best to keep our shipping page current, but laws change daily.

80-Lower.com only ships within the United States. Federal legislation dictates we cannot ship our products internationally.
Going to the shipping page, you can see even more description. There's a lot there, but one section says this:
Quote:
New York
New York law criminalizes the possession, manufacture, sale, and transportation of assault weapons, which are defined as any semiautomatic rifle that can accept a detachable magazine and has at least one of several enumerated secondary characteristics, including a pistol grip or a stock that folds, telescopes, or bears a thumbhole.

Please be aware of your local firearms laws, as this may not be a complete list.
From this, the AG says the website has the intent to sell assault weapons. You don't have to be a lawyer to see that it's BS.
  #81  
Old 09-30-2019, 07:40 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 22,857
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
It doesn't make any difference. The goal is to harass and cost these companies money.
Well, it does make a difference if that goal is invoked to get them to stop doing something illegal or to get them to stop doing something legal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone
You seem to be avoiding the merits, avoiding the reasoning, and assuming that the AG has positive intent.
No, as I keep saying, I don't see any way (for a layperson) to independently tell for certain whether the AG has positive intent. I'm not assuming that she does, but I'm not just taking your word for it that she doesn't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone
But if you understand the purpose of a SLAAP lawsuit, it should be pretty clear the potential for abuse here.
I certainly do see how the practice of AGs sending cease-and-desist letters is open to potential abuse. What you haven't demonstrated---as opposed to just asserted---is whether or not such abuse is actually being committed in this case.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone
You don't have to be a lawyer to see that it's BS.
As a non-lawyer myself, I try to be pretty conservative in estimating what non-lawyers can be confident of understanding correctly about legal issues. YMMV.
  #82  
Old 10-02-2019, 07:07 PM
Ranger Jeff is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 6,917
If it isn't a "firearm", then the 2nd Amendment wouldn't apply. Ban them.
  #83  
Old 10-04-2019, 03:42 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,557
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ranger Jeff View Post
If it isn't a "firearm", then the 2nd Amendment wouldn't apply. Ban them.
The 2nd Amendment may apply in future cases about manufacturing a firearm for personal use, should a state decide to ban that.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:28 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017