Knife Rights To Appeal Outrageous NYC Ruling by Obama-Appointed Judge

Status
Not open for further replies.

Critter

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2003
Messages
1,768
A U.S. District Court Judge has ruled that persons falsely arrested or threatened with arrest have no standing to sue in Knife Rights' Federal civil rights lawsuit against New York City and District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. Although every prior ruling in the case went our way under two previous judges, the case was recently reassigned to Obama appointee Katherine B. Forrest. Litigation always presents the risk that a judge (and especially a judge new to a case) will make an erroneous ruling.

On Tuesday the judge ruled that the plaintiffs in our case - who have been falsely arrested or threatened with arrest over common pocket knives - do not have standing to sue, in part because the case documents don't identify specific knives that would be illegal under New York City's interpretation of state law. The trouble is, it's nearly impossible to identify them under New York City's haphazard and inconsistent approach - which is the whole point of the case in the first place! Even the DA has admitted that different specimens of the exact same make and model knife could be simultaneously found to be both legal and illegal! Click to read the judge's ruling.

So here we have a situation where we're suing because we can't know with certainty what's legal or banned, yet the judge is saying we don't have standing to sue precisely because we haven't identified what's legal or banned in our court papers. That's simply absurd!

But even if the judge were correct - which she is not - she was required by well-established legal principles to allow us a chance to amend our papers to "correct" the supposed "defects." Instead, she simply ignored these principles and declared the case over.

A similar situation arose in a recent lawsuit involving a U.S. District Judge in neighboring New Jersey. After straining to find supposed "defects" in the complaint that affected standing, the judge refused to allow the complaint to be amended to correct the "defects." On appeal, the ruling was reversed and the appeals court criticized the judge, saying she had abused her discretion. The same thing could happen here.

But whatever happens, this ruling forces Knife Rights to spend more time and money to appeal the judge's decision - all while Rome continues to burn. We still receive calls every week from innocent citizens whose lives have been turned upside down simply because they carried a basic tool, a pocket knife, in New York City. Thousands have been arrested on bogus illegal knife charges. In at least one instance of which we are aware, the result of the bogus arrest was that the victim's entire knife collection was confiscated from his home. Gun owners have had their firearms confiscated based on bogus knife arrests.

We cannot let New York City succeed in its attempt to redefine "gravity knife" to include ordinary folding knives. This could become a model for other cities and jurisdictions across America, resulting in knife owners throughout the country being arrested for doing nothing wrong. We cannot let that happen! And, we will not!

Knife Rights is carefully planning its response to Judge Forrest's ruling. We will never stop fighting for your rights, and neither should you. Please help us win this critical battle by contributing to Knife Rights Foundation's Legal Fund today as generously as you can. We've led the fight to defend knife rights in the legislative arena and we are pioneering it in the courts. Please help us defend freedom!

Make a tax-deductible donation to the Knife Rights Foundation Legal Fund TODAY!
 
What was the purpose in pointing out that the judge was appointed by Obama? Rallying support from anti-Obama camp?
 
What was the purpose in pointing out that the judge was appointed by Obama? Rallying support from anti-Obama camp?

I was wondering the same thing. Other than that, it's a sad situation to see and a terrible decision with huge implications not just for knife rights but for due process rights. With any luck the interference with due process is what will get this decision challenged and, hopefully, overturned.
 
hate to say it but it does appear that the plaintiffs were seeking an advisory opinion, which the courts are not allowed to give -- they are only able to rule on a complete set of actual facts in which the plaintiff has suffered an actual harm. That legal principle has exactly zero to do with who appointed the judge. And I don't see how correcting the identified defects would remedy the fundamental problem of asking for an advisory opinion. When a law is unclear and a party who has not suffered harm wants clarity, generally the system expects that they will lobby the legislature to make the law more clear. Or in some situations (but not always where criminal laws are concerned) it is possible to request an advisry opinion from the DA or the attorney general. But not from the courts they aren't allowed to give advice in response to hypotheticals.

The best bet would be to find someone facing charges for carying a "gravity knife" that was a normal EDC, then assist in their defense. It's not as easy to do that, but it gets rid of the standing issue (for the defendant, Knife Rights still would not be an actual individual party but could assist in the defense) and you say the organization gets lots of calls from disrupted citizens so one or more of them could be candidates. That would be the cleanest way to get the issue decided on the merits without unnecesary distractions like standing.

Alternately the knife shop could try to seek an injunction prohibiting the state from prosecuting it for the sale of certain specific identified knives under the statute, but I'm not sure whether such a lawsuit is allowed under New York law.
 
Last edited:
As fishface says, the judge did not make a ruling on the issues of the suit they brought, nor did she rule that they could not sue. She ruled they did not have legal standing to challenge the definitions of the terms in the law, which is all this suit was about. From what I can tell, she was right. It's not a matter of politics - it's a matter of law.

I don't like the vagueness in the law, and it will come back to bite them, but not here and likely not with these plaintiffs.
 
This will not slip in to a political debate. Spark has given the OK for kniferights.org posts so I'll sticky this one for a while.
 
thank god I don't live in new York. all I hear about is how they are messing up the knife rights and how the people are getting messed over.
 
Replying to a number of the posts:

This legal decision turns long established legal principles on their head. Just because a judge said something, doesn't make it correct. This kind of thing is to be anticipated in any case that challenges one of the largest cities in the U.S. Our attorneys are among the best in the nation at this sort of thing and have been fighting these battles for many years with considerable success up through Supreme Court victories.

The tactic of attacking standing has arisen before in Second Amendment / civil rights cases. It delays the cases and forces plaintiffs to spend money. While annoying, it's not like we didn't foresee this tactic a long time ago. We have built a fortress on the issue of standing in our original complaint, amended complaint, briefs and response to motions. You can find all of them listed at the bottom of this page: http://www.kniferights.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=234 Read them yourself and see. We clearly have demonstrated our standing, to a level that is virtually unheard of in modern litigation.

Taken in context, the judge is, at best, mistaken. We have every expectation we will prevail on appeal.
 
And what's your response to the political issue of pointing out that the judge was appointed by Obama? Again, this is irrelevant to the legal question, and appears to instead be an attempt to rally anti-Obama support. Is it?

Cheers,
Daniel
 
And what's your response to the political issue of pointing out that the judge was appointed by Obama? Again, this is irrelevant to the legal question, and appears to instead be an attempt to rally anti-Obama support. Is it?

Cheers,
Daniel

I think it was to reinforce the fact that our president is not on the peoples side when it comes to issues like this.
 
And what's your response to the political issue of pointing out that the judge was appointed by Obama? Again, this is irrelevant to the legal question, and appears to instead be an attempt to rally anti-Obama support. Is it?

Cheers,
Daniel

I think it was to reinforce the fact that our president is not on the peoples side when it comes to issues like this.

As I said earlier, this will not turn into a political debate. Any further attempts to do so will result in warnings or infractions. Simply stating the fact a judge was appointed by a president (any president) is not necessarily a political statement. If you choose to interpret this statement as political that's your prerogative but this isn't the thread to discuss it.
 
I don't see what political has to do with the knife laws in new York. I have been reading for years about there screwed up laws.
 
As I said earlier, this will not turn into a political debate. Any further attempts to do so will result in warnings or infractions. Simply stating the fact a judge was appointed by a president (any president) is not necessarily a political statement. If you choose to interpret this statement as political that's your prerogative but this isn't the thread to discuss it.

Oh, I guess they were just pointing it out for the sake of facts. That's going to help me in future games of Trivial Pursuit for sure.
 
I support what Knife Rights is trying to do, but based on a reading of the decision I'm not sure this case is a winner. Good luck.
 
It's clear that the op wants us all to know he doesn't like Obama. Whatever. That kinda goes with the territory for the knife/gun community these days.

I'm not really political at all, but I don't understand this extreme hatred for Obama. I agree with his stances more often than not, with one notable exception being the bank bailout and basically giving Wallstreet a pass for all that shit they did.
 
Since we have some reading comprehension problems I'm going to close this one.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top