Home » Posts tagged "Lawyer"

New York Legislation to Close Gun Show Loophole; New York Criminal Defense Lawyer Rochelle Berliner Explains the Bill and Effects on Gun Buyers, Sellers and Distributors

New York Legislation to Close Gun Show Loophole; New York Criminal Defense Lawyer Rochelle Berliner Explains the Bill and Effects on Gun Buyers, Sellers and Distributors











Queens, New York (PRWEB) December 28, 2011

Ten firearms dealers were charged with illegal gun sales over the past eight months, as stated in an announcement by the Office of the Attorney General on December 4, 2011, after New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman conducted a series of undercover gun show investigations exposing sellers who allegedly did not properly observe current gun laws. Schneiderman’s weapons sting is part of the Attorney General’s fight against illicit gun sales and weapons trafficking in New York. Schneiderman, with the help of U.S. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), aims to tighten New York’s current gun laws and increase punishments for violators.

Last week, Senator Gillibrand announced her support for Schneiderman and his goal of increasing gun control when she introduced the “Gun Trafficking Prevention Act of 2011” into federal legislation. If accepted, Gillibrand’s bill would toughen penalties for dealers convicted of illegal gun sales in New York as well as persons charged with weapons trafficking throughout the state and across state lines. Several factors led to the crackdown on vendors and gun shows, including the increase in weapons crimes involving guns in the state of New York.

New York weapons defense attorney Rochelle Berliner explains, “New York City already has some of the most restrictive local licensing requirements for Federal firearm dealers in the country. The proposed legislation brings controversy into question concerning states’ rights to choose the definition of what is “reasonable” gun control, and it could end up punishing persons, such as gun shows operators, who have very little or no control over whether the law is actually being obeyed.”

According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) gun crime statistics in the US for 2010, gun violence in New York increased 7 percent from 2009 to 2010 and accounted for over 60 percent of all crimes reported. A nationwide spike in police gun deaths in U.S also contributed to lawmakers’ urgency to reform gun control policy. To date, there have been166 police deaths nationwide in the past 11 months, an increase from last year’s 146, according to a spokesperson at The National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund.

Senator Gillibrand and Attorney General Schneiderman argue gun trafficking begins with the ease of an unqualified person’s ability to purchase weapons at gun shows. The weapons sold without proper protocol at gun shows subsequently end up on the streets, either to be used directly to commit a crime by the buyer or resold illicitly to someone else, becoming virtually untraceable of current location and origin of the weapon. The proposed bill by Senator Gillibrand would make all such transactions illegal, and a dealer could face a fine of up to $ 2,500 per violation, in addition to a suspension of their license for up to six months.

Under the federal Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, an amendment to the Gun Control Act of 1968, firearms dealers with Federal Firearms Licenses are required to enter buyers into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) maintained by the FBI. Currently, gun sales in violation of the Brady Act can result in a misdemeanor offense; however, unlicensed private sellers are not subject to the Brady Act.

“On a federal level, private sellers who rent a booth at a gun show are not required to conduct a background check on their buyers, but New York laws state all firearm exhibitors must conduct a national instant criminal background check prior to all firearm sales or transfers, including sales or transfers of rifles or shotguns at a gun show,” states Berliner, a gun sale defense lawyer in Queens.

The Gun Trafficking Prevention Act of 2011 would punish individuals engaged in a conspiracy to traffic guns equally to those who actually traffic a gun, and alleged offenders could face up to 20 years in prison. Those accused of organizing gun trafficking operations would be subject to additional sentencing and could potentially serve five consecutive years in prison. Furthermore, the new bill would make the sale of two or more firearms illegal if the seller has reason to believe the buyer intends to use the guns to commit a felony. Penalties may increase depending on the quantity of guns trafficked.

Additionally, the proposed bill aims to eliminate the illegal flow of guns into New York by cracking down on gun trafficking into New York from across state and national borders through the creation of a unified national policy on gun sales that includes background checks, no matter in which state the gun sale occurred.

According to Berliner, “The proposed legislation would create a huge ambiguity in regard to the seller’s understanding of the buyer’s intentions and the seller’s understanding of the law, specifically regarding what constitutes a felony crime in the state of New York.”

Rochelle Berliner of the Law Office of Rochelle S. Berliner is a Queens criminal defense attorney committed to the protection of men and women accused of crimes throughout the areas of Queens County, New York County (Manhattan), Kings County (Brooklyn) and Bronx County, including Jackson Heights, Astoria, Rosedale, Chelsea, Washington Heights, Harlem, Bushwick, Flatbush, South Bronx, Williamsbridge and all other neighborhoods of New York City.

###





















Vocus©Copyright 1997-

, Vocus PRW Holdings, LLC.
Vocus, PRWeb, and Publicity Wire are trademarks or registered trademarks of Vocus, Inc. or Vocus PRW Holdings, LLC.







More The Constitution Press Releases

Posted on January 12, 2012 by , Reply

Lyme Resident Anne Littlefield Receives ‘Lawyer of the Year’ Honor for Shipman & Goodwin

Lyme Resident Anne Littlefield Receives ‘Lawyer of the Year’ Honor for Shipman & Goodwin










Hartford, CT (PRWEB) October 31, 2011

Anne Littlefield, a Lyme resident and attorney with Shipman & Goodwin LLP (http://shipman-and-goodwin.com), has been named Lawyer of the Year in Hartford Education Law by Best Lawyers 2012.

Based on more than 3.9 million confidential detailed evaluations, Best Lawyers, the oldest and most respected peer-review publication in the legal profession, designates only a single lawyer in each high-profile legal specialty in each large legal community as a “Lawyer of the Year.”

Ms. Littlefield received particularly high ratings by earning a high level of respect among her peers for her abilities, professionalism and integrity. She is Co-Leader of the firm’s School Law Practice Group, where she represents public school districts and charter schools in labor relations, employment and education law, including collective bargaining, personnel policies and practices, constitutional law, special education, student discipline, freedom of information, and education policies. Ms. Littlefield also regularly presents at seminars and training sessions, and can be reached at alittlefield(at)goodwin(dot)com or (860) 251-5715.

# # #



















Vocus©Copyright 1997-

, Vocus PRW Holdings, LLC.
Vocus, PRWeb, and Publicity Wire are trademarks or registered trademarks of Vocus, Inc. or Vocus PRW Holdings, LLC.







Posted on November 13, 2011 by , Reply

New York Civil Rights Violation Lawyer from The Perecman Firm Comments on Alleged Racial Discrimination in Bronx Apartment Rentals

New York Civil Rights Violation Lawyer from The Perecman Firm Comments on Alleged Racial Discrimination in Bronx Apartment Rentals












New York, NY (PRWEB) October 12, 2011

A Bronx landlord of a Riverdale building is being sued by the Justice Department for race discrimination, a civil rights violation in New York.

Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara filed the civil rights violation lawsuit (Case # 11-06713) against the landlord, management company and superintendent for allegedly discriminating against African-Americans seeking apartments. The lawsuit claims they offered apartments to whites but not to African-Americans.

The race discrimination lawsuit was filed in Manhattan federal court.

According to the civil rights violation complaint, Loventhal Silver Riverdale LLC, Goodman Management Co. and superintendent Jesus Velasco had “engaged in conduct constituting illegal discrimination” since at least April of 2009.

“There are a number of reasons a landlord can legitimately reject a tenant, including a bad credit report or an unstable employment history. However, landlords can’t treat tenants or potential tenants differently because of a personal characteristic or feature like race or disability,” said New York civil rights violation lawyer David Perecman, founder of The Perecman Firm, one of New York’s civil rights violation law firms.

As New York civil rights violation lawyers understand, the federal Fair Housing Act makes it illegal for a landlord to refuse an apartment or house rental application based on race, color, religion, national origin, sex, disability and familial status.

According to the New York Daily News, Loventhal, Goodman and Velasco were caught after African-American and white “testers” visited the building, posing as would-be renters.

As reported by the New York Daily News, Velasco refused to give a black tester a rental application on April 8, 2009, but a short while later provided a white tester with an application, according to the New York race discrimination lawsuit.

On May 8 and Nov. 18, 2009, Velasco steered away African-American testers while offering apartments to white testers at discounts, as reported by the New York Daily News.

“This civil rights violation lawsuit should strongly remind other landlords that they will be held accountable if they engage in or enable others to engage in discrimination against prospective tenants in New York,” civil rights violation lawyer Perecman said.

If a person suspects that he or she has been treated unfairly because of his or her race, they should contact an experienced New York civil rights violation lawyer. Lawyers at The Perecman Firm are knowledgeable of New York state, New York City and federal legislation that protects people of all races, ethnicities, and gender.

About David Perecman and The Perecman Firm, PLLC:

For the past 30 years, the New York civil rights violation lawyers at The Perecman Firm, PLLC have handled all types of civil rights violation cases including ethnic discrimination, age discrimination, gender discrimination and race discrimination. David Perecman, founder of the Firm, is a Board Director and the past Secretary and Treasurer of the New York State Trial Lawyers Association (NYSTLA) and a chair of its Labor Law Committee. Mr. Perecman’s achievements have brought him recognition as an Honoree in the National Law Journal’s Hall of Fame, in New York Magazine’s “The Best Lawyers in America” and The New York Times Magazine “New York Super Lawyers, Metro Edition” for the years 2007-2010.

The Firm has recovered millions of dollars for its clients. Among the more recent victories, Mr. Perecman won a $ 15 million verdict** for a construction accident, a $ 5.35 million dollar verdict*** for an automobile accident, and a $ 40 million dollar structured settlement for medical malpractice****.

**later settled while on appeal for $ 7.940 million    

*** later settled for $ 3.5 million

**** total potential payout

“Lawyer Advertising”

“Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.”

###






















Vocus©Copyright 1997-

, Vocus PRW Holdings, LLC.
Vocus, PRWeb, and Publicity Wire are trademarks or registered trademarks of Vocus, Inc. or Vocus PRW Holdings, LLC.







Related The Constitution Press Releases

Posted on October 29, 2011 by , Reply

Would Ron Paul Be Endorsed by the Founding Fathers? Lawyer Says Yes

Would Ron Paul Be Endorsed by the Founding Fathers? Lawyer Says Yes










Washington D.C. (PRWEB) December 16, 2007

LawyerUCLA.com currently serves as a directory for over 6,000 lawyers across the United States. And when it comes to the 2008 presidential election, the website has decided not to keep quiet — making a firm case for Ron Paul.

Ron Paul, self proclaimed champion of the Constitution, is a 10-term congressman from Texas.

According to the statistics provided on their website, 61 percent of the mentions of the Constitution at the 2008 presidential debates were made by Ron Paul himself, despite being a candidate that has not been given a fair amount of time to speak.

Assuming 10 total candidates, 39 percent of the references to the Constitution would be divided among the nine other candidates. If the total number of references were to be split evenly across the rest of the candidates, each candidate would roughly only contribute to 4.3 percent of the Constitutional mentions. So this means that Ron Paul is 14 times more likely to utter the words of the Constitution than the average candidate.

Excluded from the statistics provided on LawyerUCLA.com were references to desired constitutional amendments such as those proposed to ban abortion and gay marriage. Also excluded were references made to state constitutions that have frequently been uttered by the two former governors running for president: Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney.

A list of quotes by Ron Paul at these debates were also provided in their article entitled “Empirical Proof That The Founding Fathers Would Endorse Ron Paul”.

The most highly publicized quote by Ron Paul occurred when Ron Paul challenged Mitt Romney’s statement regarding needing to consult lawyers. “This idea of going and talking to attorneys totally baffles me. Why don’t we just open up the Constitution and read it? You’re not allowed to go to war without a declaration of war,” said Ron Paul in a debate October 9 in Michigan.

# # #



















Vocus©Copyright 1997-

, Vocus PRW Holdings, LLC.
Vocus, PRWeb, and Publicity Wire are trademarks or registered trademarks of Vocus, Inc. or Vocus PRW Holdings, LLC.







Related The Constitution Press Releases

Posted on May 13, 2011 by , Reply

Palm Desert and San Diego California Constitutional Lawyer Analyzes the $700 Billion Bailout Plan as it Was First Proposed to Congress

Unless you are in a coma, it doesn’t matter where you live in California, in Corona del Mar, San Diego, Orange County, CA, Palm Springs, Palm Desert, Long Beach, Santa Ana, Anaheim, Riverside, Chula Vista, Irvine, San Bernardino, Huntington Beach, Fontana, Moreno Valley, Oceanside, Rancho Cucamonga, Ontario, Garden Grove, Palmdale, Corona, Escondido, Orange, Fullerton, Costa Mesa, Victorville, Carlsbad, Temecula, Murrieta, Mission Viejo, El Cajon, Vista, Westminster, Santa Monica, Santa Barbara, Hesperia, Newport Beach, Buena Park, Indio, Rancho Mirage, Indian Wells or Coachella, you will have somehow heard there is an economic crisis going on, and that Congress passed a whopping $700 billion bailout plan.

 

What you may not know, is that Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson’s draft proposal for the bailout of financial service firms on Wall Street as it was presented to Congress was an unconstitutional power grab of monumental proportions.

 

Under Paulson’s plan, no oversight, no review and no challenges would have been allowed by the courts, by Congress or by individuals. Henry Paulson had proposed that he effectively be appointed economic czar.

 

Under Section 8 of his initial proposal, which for years to come, will undoubtedly form the basis for questions on bar exams for law students, “Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act, are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.”

 

Under Section 8 of this Act, the Treasury Secretary would arguably have become a more powerful figure than our largely missing-in-action President, more powerful than the head of the Federal Reserve, the SEC and Congress combined, and as such in violation of the Constitution of the United States of America.

 

The draft proposal was in conflict with the Constitution for the simple reason that our nation’s most important document provides that every member of the executive branch, including the Treasury Secretary, is subject to legislative and executive review. Neither Congress nor the executive may delegate its authority to a cabinet member. It would have been like Congress delegating all its power to Sarah Palin, or to a single congressman, or to Superdog for that matter.

 

As hard as it is to violate the nondelegation clause in the Constitution, if there has ever been a proposal to come out of the executive branch which does a good job of it, it has been argued that this is probably the one.

 

The question is, did the President tell Paulson to get a blank check from Congress and to heck with the Constitution or did Paulson come up with this on his own? Did the President and Paulson really believe that if they told Congress they needed this power in 24 hours like the TV show, that Congress, even the Republicans in Congress, would give it to him?

 

In bad times even more so than in good times, we expect the leaders of this country to protect the Constitution of the United States, not to usurp the powers it conveys on other branches of government. Let us hope that in the coming days and months as this country tries to mend itself from this economic crisis, that Congress remembers what the executive branch seems to have forgotten – the Constitution.  

 

If you have a constitutional, or first amendment law issue in San Diego, Newport Beach, Irvine, Orange County, La Jolla, in the Inland Empire, Los Angeles, Palm Springs or anywhere in Southern California, we have the knowledge and resources to be your California Constitutional Lawyer and your Palm Springs and San Diego Business Attorney. Be sure to hire a California law firm with business and constitutional law experience who can serve areas such as Los Angeles, Palm Springs, Palm Desert, Anaheim, Irvine, Newport Beach, Carlsbad, Corona del Mar, Laguna Beach, Huntington Beach, Santa Ana, Rancho Cucamonga, Ontario, Fullerton, Del Mar, San Diego, Orange County, San Luis Obispo, Buena Park, La Jolla, Oxnard, Ventura, La Quinta, and Santa Barbara so you are properly represented.

 

If you have a constitutional, first amendment or business law issue of any kind, call the Law Offices of R. Sebastian Gibson, or visit our website at http://www.sebastiangibsonlaw.com  and learn how we can assist you.

The Sebastian Gibson Law Firm serves all of San Diego, Orange County, Palm Springs and Palm Desert, the Coastal Cities from La Jolla, Carlsbad and Del Mar to Laguna Beach, Newport Beach, Irvine, Santa Ana and up to Ventura, Oxnard, Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo. We also serve the Inland Empire cities of Ontario, Rancho Cucamonga, Temecula, Riverside and San Bernardino and all the cities in the Coachella Valley and high desert, from La Quinta, Indio, and Coachella to Yucca Valley and Victorville.


Visit our website at http://www.sebastiangibsonlaw.com if you have a constitutional, first amendment or business law issue of any kind. We have the knowledge and resources to represent you as your California Constitutional Lawyer and Palm Desert Business Attorney or your attorney in and around the cities of Palm Springs, Palm Desert, San Diego, Orange County, Corona del Mar, Newport Beach, Santa Ana, Laguna Beach, Anaheim, Riverside, Chula Vista, Irvine, San Bernardino, Huntington Beach, Fontana, Moreno Valley, Oceanside, La Jolla, Del Mar, San Marcos, Rancho Cucamonga, Ontario, Garden Grove, Palmdale, Long Beach, Corona, Yorba Linda, Escondido, Orange, Fullerton, Costa Mesa, Victorville, Carlsbad, Temecula, Murrieta, Mission Viejo, El Cajon, Vista, Westminster, Santa Monica, Malibu, Westwood, Hesperia, Buena Park, Indio, Coachella, Del Mar, Oxnard, Ventura, San Luis Obispo, Cambria and Santa Barbara.

Posted on June 18, 2010 by , Reply