Oral Arguments Audio

OK, we finally have audio from the December 9th oral arguments in the 2nd Circuit Court Of Appeals.

After listening, I’m sure you’ll agree that our attorney Dave Thompson made some strong arguments for our side. Also included is the case against our NY neighbor’s (un)SAFE Act, which is similar to our Public Act 13-3 and was argued at the same time.

Don’t forget, Dave Thompson will be coming up from Washington, DC to attend our January 13 meeting, where he share his thoughts on the case and answer questions. If you haven’t made it to a meeting in a while, you’ll want to attend this one.

Also, remember this legal challenge is far from over. Even if we prevail here, the state is sure to appeal. If you can, please donate to our legal fund. 100% of the donations go to this lawsuit. DONATE HERE

If you would like to just download the audio, you can do that here: Second Circuit Oral Arguments.mp3

UPDATE: For those who have not been following this case closely the whole time, I’d just like to point out that this not like a trial you see on TV or in the movies. The bulk of the case is submitted in written form well in advance. Think of the posted audio as just the closing argument, where our lawyer was only allowed 20 minutes to sum up our case. If you’ve been following along, we’ve posted many of these written documents as they became available to us, but if you want a quick overview, click here.

11 thoughts on “Oral Arguments Audio

  1. Pingback: Oral Arguments in CT and NY Gun Laws

  2. For those who have not been following this case closely the whole time, I’d just like to point out that this not like a trial you see on TV or in the movies. The bulk of the case is submitted in written form well in advance. Think of the posted audio as just the closing argument, where our lawyer was only allowed 20 minutes to sum up our case. If you’ve been following along, we’ve posted many of these written documents as they became available to us, but if you want a quick overview, click here.

  3. Our lawyers were much more familiar with their terms, and much more comfortable in their presentation. I didn’t see any clear indication of which way the court will decide, but their questions seemed to indicate they will decide on evidence, not emotion. Clearly, this will go all the way to the Supreme Court- if they will hear it.

  4. Pingback: Oral Argument MP3 from NYSRP

  5. The constitution mentions a well regulated militia. This case to me is totally mute in the fact that we are to be able to defend ourselves from all enemies. A law abiding citizen is less capable of defending themself from perpetrators who have larger capacity magazines which give them more opportunity to get over on us with limited magazines.
    If by chance we are invaded by a foreign nation, these restrictions will hinder us from being able to fully defend ourselves, our families, our neighbors, and our country. Are we to just sit in the background and wait for the armed forces to come rescue us as individuals? And what if our government decided to attack us because we are armed which is within our constitutional rights? Are we to go into a gunfight ill prepaid with 10 or 7 round magazines when they have high capacity ones? This is why the 2nd amendment was written. We are the people and we are the government, of the people, by the people. And now we are dictating to outsells that we are limiting our own protection? This just a total end run around the constitution to continue in disarming our citizenry and making law abiding citizens into criminals that actually understand the constitution and it’s amendments.
    At the time of the revolutionary war the people had muskets and so did the militias. Today our armies have high capacity M16s and it goes without saying that the armed citizenry have the right to the same arms. We will not be attacked with hunting rifles or low capacity magazined arms. This is what our right to defend ourselves includes, not just defending ourselves from a home invading perpetrator.
    What doesn’t our government understand that our right to bear arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED UPON?!?!
    In any way shape or manor for that matter!

  6. Again: They had 20 minutes total to address both the CT and NY cases.This was just a summation of the case and answering any questions the judges had. Unless you have read ALL the filed evidence (which is hundreds of pages), you really can’t say the lawyers didn’t make so and so point in the case.
    I’ll also point out something I once learned first hand – we’re not lawyers, and we’re certainly not lawyers experienced in this sort of case. Successful lawyers often don’t seem to handle a case the same way we would think it should be done. In my own case, I was almost ready to fire my lawyer because I was certain he was incompetent (even though he was considered one of the best in the state in his specialty), but in the end we won our case easily despite my armchair quarterbacking.
    We’re paying this team a lot of money because they have a proven track record of winning. I’m going to trust they know more than I do about how to go about that.

  7. I shared this audio with my former USAF Combat Arms Training and Maintenance Instructor’s group and the fish and game club in my home town in Ohio. Others are encouraged to share this around the country. We need national attention and donations to combat this.

  8. Bill Boylan, you are absolutely correct… We are down to around $70,000 (give or take)..

  9. Pingback: » The Yankee Gunner Podcast – 042The Yankee Gunner

Comments are closed.