You are here: / / STATUTE PROHIBITING CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON AS AN ACT OF TERRORISM ...

STATUTE PROHIBITING CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON AS AN ACT OF TERRORISM NOT PREEMPTED BY FEDERAL LAW AND NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

The First Department determined the statute prohibiting criminal possession of a weapon as an act of terrorism was not preempted by federal law and was not unconstitutional:

​

Defendant has not met his burden of showing a “clear and unambiguous” congressional intent to preempt state legislation in the field of counterterrorism … . The statute is not expressly preempted by 18 USC § 2338, which states that federal district courts have exclusive jurisdiction over actions brought under 18 USC part I, chapter 113B. Although Penal Law § 490.25(1) uses language substantially identical to the federal definition of “domestic terrorism” (18 USC § 2331[5]), the Penal Law provision is a separate statute limited to the commission of enumerated state offenses.

Defendant also fails to establish implied federal preemption of state counterterrorism laws. Since a local community will typically be the most directly affected by a terrorist attack there … , the “federal interest” in counterterrorism is not “so dominant” as to “preclude” local enforcement of state laws against attempts to commit terrorist attacks … . Moreover, Congress has not enacted “a framework of regulation so pervasive” as to leave “no room for the States to supplement it” … . This is evident from the strong federal policy of cooperating with state and local governments to combat terrorism … .

The statute is not unconstitutionally vague in proscribing the “intent to intimidate or coerce a civilian population” … , in light of the Court of Appeals’ construction of the emphasized phrase in People v Morales (20 NY3d 240, 247-249 [2012]). Defendant’s arguments that the statute is unconstitutionally vague in using the phrase “unit of government” among other terms are likewise unpersuasive … .

We also reject defendant’s challenges to the statute under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment and article I, § 8 of the New York Constitution. We are unpersuaded by defendant’s argument that the statute amounts to an impermissible content-based restriction of speech by increasing the felony level and sentencing range imposed on those who commit an enumerated criminal offense with the “intent to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, influence the policy of a unit of government by intimidation or coercion, or affect the conduct of a unit of government by murder, assassination or kidnapping” … . Such heightened punishment for defendant’s admitted intent of, among other things, influencing the United States government’s foreign policy by building and possessing a pipe bomb does not infringe his right to free speech … . Moreover, defendant’s argument that the statute is overbroad in chilling political speech is unavailing, since any overbreadth is not “substantial . . . in relation to the statute’s plainly legitimate sweep” … of prohibiting criminal conduct perpetrated with an intent commonly associated with terrorism … . People v Pimentel, 2017 NY Slip Op 02891, 1st Dept 4-13-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (STATUTE PROHIBITING CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON AS AN ACT OF TERRORISM NOT PREEMPTED BY FEDERAL LAW AND NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL)/TERRORISM, CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON AS AN ACT OF (STATUTE PROHIBITING CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON AS AN ACT OF TERRORISM NOT PREEMPTED BY FEDERAL LAW AND NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL)/CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON AS AN ACT OF TERRORISM  (STATUTE PROHIBITING CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON AS AN ACT OF TERRORISM NOT PREEMPTED BY FEDERAL LAW AND NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL)

You might also like
FIREFIGHTER’S DEATH DURING A TRAINING EXERCISE NOT ACTIONABLE UNDER GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 205-a AND LABOR LAW 27-a (FIRST DEPT).
The Meaning of “Manifest Intent” in the Context of a Fidelity Bond Insuring the Employer Against Dishonest Acts by an Employee Explained
DRUG FACTORY JURY INSTRUCTION NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT).
THE EVIDENCE WAS SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) FALLING-OBJECT CASE; BRICK WORK WAS BEING DONE ON THE BUILDING ABOVE WHERE PLAINTIFF WAS STANDING AND PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY A FALLING BRICK; THERE WAS NO SAFETY NETTING TO PROTECT AGAINST FALLING OBJECTS (FIRST DEPT).
THE SEARCH WAS NOT INCIDENT TO ARREST AS THE SUPPRESSION COURT RULED, CASE REMITTED FOR CONSIDERATION OF AN ALTERNATE GROUND FOR A VALID SEARCH WHICH WAS ARGUED BUT NOT RULED UPON BELOW. ​
THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANTS HAD CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE WORN STEP IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
EMAILS DID NOT EXPLICITLY WAIVE THE INITIAL AGREEMENT THAT THE PARTIES WOULD NOT BE BOUND UNTIL A FORMAL AGREEMENT WAS EXECUTED, NO CONTRACT WAS CREATED (FIRST DEPT).
A Misrepresentation Which Is the Subject of a Provision in a Contract May Be the Basis for a Distinct Fraud Cause of Action Which Is Not Duplicative of the Breach of Contract Cause of Action

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

EVIDENCE DEFENDANT HOTEL HELD ITSELF OUT AS THE PROPERTY OWNER ON ITS WEBSITE RAISED... COUNTY COURT DID NOT HAVE AUTHORITY TO ALLOW AMENDMENT OF CONSPIRACY COUNT BY...