Wednesday, May 18, 2016

Legal Aid Society Files Amicus Brief in Knife Rights Case

May 12, 2016: The Legal Aid Society, the oldest and largest private non-profit legal services agency in the nation and New York's primary public defender, yesterday filed an Amicus Curiae (Friend of the Court) Brief in support of Knife Rights' long-running Civil Rights Lawsuit against New York City and District Attorney Cyrus Vance, Jr.

Knife Rights Chairman Doug Ritter said, "The Legal Aid Society's well-reasoned and eloquently written brief compellingly tells the stories of individuals who have fallen victim to defendants' unconstitutional practices and ties directly into the key elements of the defendants' continued sordid prosecutions of innocent knife owners. The Society has succeeded in adding additional human faces to the injustice these prosecutions have visited on tens of thousands of law-abiding knife owners, highlighting the serious constitutional issues at stake here."

The lawsuit, filed in 2011, challenges the City's and DA Vance's attempt to criminalize as contraband the most widely-owned pocket knives in America under the state law prohibiting gravity knives. The case seeks a judicial determination that the New York State law regarding gravity knives is unconstitutionally vague as applied by NYC and the DA to these common pocket knives (which are distinct from gravity knives because of their bias towards closure).

Knife Rights' lawsuit intends to stop NYC officials from abusing this vague state law to make bogus arrests of law-abiding citizens carrying common pocket knives, and from coercing knife retailers into making huge payments to avoid prosecution. The Village Voice two years ago analyzed data from several sources to come to the conclusion that there have been as many as 60,000 gravity-knife prosecutions over the past decade, and that the rate has more than doubled in that time.

Several rounds of trial papers have already been field with the court by the parties with a public hearing before U.S. District Court Judge Katherine B. Forrest currently scheduled to be held on June 16 in the United States Courthouse in Manhattan.

Click here to read the Notice of Motion to File Amicus Curiae Brief.
Click here to read The Legal Aid Society's Amicus Curiae Brief.

Click here for additional information on the lawsuit.



Anonymous said...

Alito's recent, pointed as it is, written decision is the mass case regarding stun guns/tazers is quite instructive to the lower courts on this issue as well.

Bearable arms means bearable arms. PERIOD.

Though passed on now, Scalia air dropped the biggest nuclear bomb on "gun control" possible when he wrote 6 precious words after laying out why the First Amendment holds and MUST hold regardless of emotion based opposition - 'The Second Amendment is no different.".

The court can no longer be used to play the game that somehow the Second Amendment is "different" that the First as it pertains to jurisprudence. Alienation of the Second by judicial means NOW means there WILL be bleedover into First Amendment jurisprudence. Even the 9 robed kings understand the population will never sit idle for that. Thus, the 9 have no choice but to stomach bleedover the other direction. Already long established precedents for the First must now be applied to the Second as well. Anything less risks undermining literally every bit of case law ever manufactured. This is why we witnessed even the Wise Latina (miss chucks herself) and Kagan and even Ginsburg chose as they did going along with Alito in Mass. They know the game, the gun control game, is OVER.

All that is left for them now is stalling.

Avalanching the judiciary now is what we need, from guns to knives to bats to even rocks. The stalling will continue until we put more pressure on them to stop it entirely. Alito sent us that message......I hope we respond accordingly. Furthermore, I hope those among us recognize where the "gun rights organizations" actions fall. Do they stand and fight, pressing forward or do they stand idle, helping the machine stall as long as possible?

Anonymous said...

All we have to do now is to get the tenth amendment recognized as it is written and we shoot down all state gun laws and all federally unconstitutional gun control acts. I have never been able to understand how anyone can define the word infringe any differently than it is when used in the second amendment. either you can infringe or you can not infringe and the wording Shall Not is an absolutely legal command. the very reason the words Shall Not Be Infringed are in the second amendment is to make it as clear as possible the government is the servant of the people. The tenth amendment makes it very clear that the states can not change anything in the federal constitution. There is no state authority and never has been for the states to change the second amendment. The states can not change the first amendment and they can not change the second amendment. Executive orders are not constitutional amendments. Executive orders can not create law. Agency regulations can not make law. Cabinet members can not make law. Congress can not create agencies that make law because all laws must originate in congress. In fact, Congress is mandated to impeach and remove anyone that violates their oath of office for any reason. the constitution clearly states Congress SHALL Impeach and Remove from Office. Congress is required to remove its own members when necessary. It is not an option, Congress is mandated by the constitution to enforce the duty to remove and impeach.

Anonymous said...

Congress is by fact required to impeach and remove supreme court judges when they ignore the requirements of the constitution. Roe v Wade is a good example. we are guaranteed life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Notice it says nothing about health of the mother or when life begins. one celled organisms are alive. the instant fertilization takes place a live sperm combines with an egg and becomes the seed of life. It will never be an ear of corn it will be and is a live living human.

Anonymous said...

One anonymous poster pointed out the very issue that needs to be addressed, the nine kings. Before the constitution judges were in fact the kings magistrates, acting with the power of the king himself. The constitution took that power away from the magistrates and turned them into judges. the definition of the words makes the important difference. Magistrates had the power to follow the written law or change the law as they saw fit, ignore the law or make law as they saw fit. Judges only have the power to enforce exactly what is written and only what is written and very narrowly required to comply without opinion or bias or using any other law that is not written in American law without consideration of any other law. to consider any other law is to violate their oath of office and is an impeachable offense. Notice how quickly Sandra day O'Connor resigned after she wrote in one of her OPINIONs that she liked a foreign law better than an American law and used that law to justify her ruling. She resigned before she could be impeached. using the excuse she needed to take care of her husband. Was she a judge or an Nurse? If she had been impeached she would not have had any retirement, not even a license to practice law. Since the supreme court was formed after the constitution was ratified the supreme court justices have been trying to reclaim the power the constitution took from them. The famous Marbury v Madison case is a prime example of an unconstitutional ruling and is used as the basis for many future rulings In that case the court simply ruled it had power the constitution had denied it. read the Marbury v Madison case it is clearly an unconstitutional ruling. basically judges are forbidden to have an opinion. their only duty is to enforce exactly what is written. check it out in the American jurisprudence second edition volume 16.

Anonymous said...

I attempted to get the legal aid of Yuma to represent me, they told me I did not have a case and refused to represent me. I represented my self pro se and won the case. I not only won, I got everything I asked for. I proved the state agency department head committed perjury. When I proved it beyond any doubt she admitted she had lied.