In January, New York became the first state to reform its gun laws after the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary. The law, passed with bipartisan support and signed by Democratic Governor Andrew Cuomo, placed new limits on firearms and ammunition. It has made opponents of gun reform seriously mad.
Yesterday on Long Island, a Republican assemblyman who voted for the New York gun law managed to win a race for town highway superintendent over the heated objections of the anti-gun-laws crowd. On their Facebook page "Dan Losquadro is dishonest," they declared victory anyway and made plans to take on more Republicans who voted for the New York SAFE Act:
Todays election has been a pyrrhic victory for us! Just like The Battle of Bunker Hill was to the patriots during the revolutionary war. While Dan Losquadro is holding a slight lead that is to close to call and will require the count of absentee ballots tomorrow. It has come at a great cost. Dan had to campaign into overdrive and sacrifice his political collateral to win this election. Our action in this election was nothing more than a group of people who love the liberties given to us by our founding fathers who expressed their frustration at politicians who promised to defend them. We are not politicians, professional campaigners, or a political action committee. What was supposed to be a small insignificant election in a highway department that had a history of running only one candidate. Has turned into a much publicized race that you do not even see on a Senator level of elections.
The group goes on to list 17 members of the New York legislature as "the ones who are next." Reporter Henry Powderly of Three Village Patch points out video, below, of activist Tom McCarthy describing how his ranks felt betrayed by Republicans for supporting gun reform. "We're gonna stop [Losquadro]," McCarthy says, "and it's going to send a message to every senator up there that we're not afraid of them, that we're coming for them." It didn't quite work that way, of course, at least with this race.
New York has seen this kind of backlash before. After the state legislature passed marriage equality in 2011, opponents managed to unseat three of the four Republican senators who voted for the bill. Now, after New York's gun legislation, counties across the state are either debating or passing motions that call for overturning the law.
Erie County, Steuben County, Schuyler County, and Cayuga County all approved measures last month calling for repeal. Essex County is to decide in a couple of weeks. Jefferson County approved a repeal measure unanimously yesterday, and Onondaga County passed a repeal measure by 14-3.
Local NBC affiliate reports this exchange from Onondaga's debate:
Patricia Campbell, a criminal defense lawyer speaking in favor of the NY SAFE Act, referred to an 1856 painting of a child hanging on the legislature walls.
"If she and 20 her classmates had been gun downed and killed, wouldn't they have done something by now?" Campbell said. "You don’t need 40 to 50 bullets in a gun. For who? The government? To shoot against the government?"
A voice from the audience said "yes."
Image above: A screengrab from a video, now private, of Losquadro opponents shooting up one of his campaign signs.
Leave a Comment:
Gee, I wonder if they see how much harm this does to their cause?
Again we aee just what kind of nuts are trying to keep us from a sane solution.
They are FIAs, Future Insurrectionists of America.
A voice from the audience said "yes."
Proof that the traitors are now not found just south of the Mason-Dixon line. But proof they're still as moronic as their southern ancestors.
The "SAFE" (Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement) Act was debated in closed session without committee hearings, and Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed it into law within an hour of its passage -- after waiving the required three-day public comment period. This 80 page legislation was passed late into the night... literally and figuratively under the cover of darkness. There existed no exigent need as claimed, of the Act’s 60 sections, only three (3) took effect on its adoption into law. Cuomo bragged that New York now has the "toughest assault weapons ban" in the country but claimed that the law respects the Second Amendment and preserves the rights of "hunters and sportsmen." The former is true; the latter is not.
The most widely reported provision of the law is the total ban on the sale of military-style rifles classified as "assault weapons," effective Jan. 15. The provision forever prohibits anyone other than a law enforcement agency from acquiring such weapons, including the popular hunting and target variants of the AR-15 rifle. Current owners of such rifles must register them with the state by 2014, and the registration must be renewed every five years. This gives the state a list of persons from which to confiscate them in the future, and the five-year renewal provision gives the state the opportunity to deny ownership once every five years. Current owners of such rifles may never sell them to another New York State resident in the future or pass them down to members of their family.
Shockingly enough, in many ways the "assault weapons ban" is actually one of the statute's lesser infringements on the Second Amendment. The statute criminalizes, potentially criminalizes, or places under state surveillance even the most innocuous, banal, and pedestrian forms of gun ownership, and it restricts the right of self-defense. The new law prohibits the sale of any quantity of ammunition by anyone other than a licensed dealer and requires that such dealer perform a criminal background check on the purchaser and forward the purchaser's name, address, age, and occupation, and the quantity, caliber, and make of the ammunition, to a State Police database. Thus, the ammunition database creates a de facto universal long gun registry. A hunter who purchases a box of five 12-gauge deer slugs will have the effect of documenting ownership of a 12-gauge shotgun.
The law affirmatively requires that a person's firearms must be confiscated if any order of protection is filed against them -- no matter how meager the complaint may be. It also requires that a "mental health professional" (including a physician) who believes that an individual is a danger to himself or others must report his or her diagnosis to the police for purposes of firearm confiscation. Such a diagnosis is highly subjective. But the law exempts such "professionals" from civil liability; thus, any "mental health professional can initiate the confiscation of a person's firearms, and the gun owner is forbidden to file a civil suit to challenge the "diagnosis."
The SAFE Act also severely infringes on the right of self-defense from criminal predation. Although Article 35 of New York Penal law allows the use of deadly force in the event of a home invasion, the SAFE Act restricts the ammunition capacity of all arms to seven rounds. If you possess a magazine loaded with more than seven rounds in your own home, you are guilty of a criminal offense. If a criminal with a stolen handgun and an illegal 15-round magazine invades your home and you shoot at him with more than eight rounds (seven plus one in the chamber), you will be criminally charged, and your magazine (and possibly your firearm) will be confiscated and destroyed without compensation, because you have now used it in the commission of a crime. Beyond that, since a handgun permit in New York is not merely a permit to carry, but a permit to possess, after you have been charged with the crime of shooting at the home invader with a high-capacity magazine, your permit will be revoked, and all of your handguns will be confiscated.
The seven-round magazine limit effectively bans or severely restricts the use of perhaps 75% of the firearms designed in the past 100 years. Seven-round magazines simply do not exist for common firearms such as the 10-shot Ruger 10/22 rifle, five million of which have been manufactured since the 1960s. Although the Act "grandfathers" existing ten-round magazines, it forbids owners to put more than seven rounds in them, and it requires lawful owners of magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds to sell them out of state, surrender them, or destroy them. This is clearly an unconstitutional deprivation of private property, in violation of the Fifth Amendment.
The law also prohibits the private "sale" or "exchange" of any firearm to any person unless a licensed dealer performs the "sale" and a background check. The politically correct law exempts parents, spouses, children, stepchildren and "domestic partners," but if a serial rapist and murderer is on the loose, you may not give a shotgun to your sister for self-protection. You may not give your brother or nephew a .22 rifle on Christmas Eve. The law does not clarify how long someone must be in possession of a firearm before such possession is understood to be an "exchange"; thus, it is possible that lending a rifle to your brother-in-law for deer season without a dealer transfer and a background check could be construed as an illegal exchange." You would then be a criminal, and the gun used in the "crime" could be confiscated and destroyed.
Finally, the SAFE Act requires that gun owners report any "loss or theft" of a firearm or ammunition to the police within 24 hours. Failure to do so is a criminal offense. Read literally, a deer hunter who drops a single 12-gauge slug in the snow and cannot find it is a criminal unless he reports the loss to the police.
The New York SAFE Act is one of the most brazen assaults on the Constitution and on individual liberty in the history of the United States. Cuomo has thumbed his nose at the Supreme Court's Heller and McDonald decisions in 2008 and 2010 affirming the right to keep and bear arms. The intent of the law is to suppress and criminalize the common use of firearms, including guns not defined as "assault weapons." This legislation does not have the support of our law enforcement community, which Cuomo failed to consult or exempt, despite being tasked with its enforcement. In fact, the NY State Sheriffs Association has specifically opposed the act. The New York State Association of County Clerks and the New York State Association of Counties have also passed resolutions opposing the NY SAFE act. More significantly, 50 of New York's 62 counties have either passed, or are in the process of passing, resolutions calling for the repeal of the SAFE Act, that list continues to grow. New York has the highest taxes in the nation. It is ranked as the least "business-friendly" state in the country. The implementation of this legislation is not only going to cost NY state 36 million dollars a year, it has created a hostile environment for both in-state and out of state sports men and women who now risk committing crimes for the countless technical criminal violations created by the SAFE Act for possessing items which can be purchased over the counter in all our neighboring states.
Governor Cuomo is dividing the state and polarizing rural voters and citizens of New York. He has tried to imply that those opposed to the SAFE act are fringe elements or extremists. To the contrary, they are the people of New York State. Below are the New York State counties, towns and law enforcement agencies who have passed or are passing resolutions against Cuomo’s SAFE ACT:
Counties
Allegany County, Broome County, Cattaraugus County, Cayuga County, Chautauqua County, Chemung County, Chenango County, Clinton County, Columbia County, Cortland County, Delaware County, Dutchess County, Erie County, Essex County, Franklin County, Fulton County, Genesee County, Greene County, Hamilton County, Herkimer County, Jefferson County, Lewis County, Livingston County, Madison County, Monroe County, Montgomery County, Niagara County, Oneida County, Onondaga County, Ontario County, Orange County, Orleans County, Oswego County, Otsego County, Putnam County, Rensselaer County, Rockland County, Saint Lawrence County, Saratoga County, Schoharie County, Schuyler County, Seneca County, Steuben County, Sullivan County, Tioga County, Ulster County, Warren County, Washington County, Wayne County, Wyoming County, Yates County
Towns:
City of Ogdensburg, Town of Argyle, Town of Cambridge, Town of Chester, Town of Clarendon, Town of Colden, Town of Conesus, Town of Deerpark, Town of Elbridge, Town of Grand Island, Town of Harrisburg, Town of Hoosick, Town of Indian Lake, Town of Jackson, Town of Libson, Town of Linclaen, Town of Marathon, Town of Neversink, Town of Palmyra, Town of Riga, Town of Saratoga, Town of Sempronius, Town of Shandaken, Town of Stafford, Town of Thompson, Town of Truxton, Town of Union Vale, Town of Walworth, Town of Warwick, Town of Wawarsing [news]
Law Enforcement
Albany Sheriff Craig Apple, Dutchess County Deputy Sheriffs PBA, Erie County Sheriff's Police Benevolent Association, Greene County Sheriff, New York State Sheriffs' Association, Saratoga County Sheriff's Association, Schuyler County Sheriff, Steuben County Deputy Sheriff's Association
Other
New York State Association of County Clerks, Association of Erie County Governments, NY Association of Counties, NYS Conference of Local Mental Hygiene Directors, Washington County Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs
Thanks for the list, @Michael_Remmy. I'll try to go through it and put together a reading library on the counties, especially.
In light of the tragedy at Sandy Hook, these folks should be ashamed of themselves. In the name of what are they frothing at the mouth about? And please don't say "2nd Amendment!" because "A well-regulated...." is the first part of that passage.
They weep for the gun manufacturers whose precious profits might be imperiled by stricter gun laws . Sad and Pathetic
They are devoid of conscience and incapable of shame.
Having eight rounds in a 10 round magazine, or having magazines with more than a 10 round capacity in New York will be defined as criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree; a "Class D Violent Felony." Wondering what some class E felonies in New York are?
Listed below the fold are a few crimes in New York that are class E felonies and A misdemeanors which are one or two arrest levels below a class D felony.
120.70 – Luring a child | E Felony.
125.10 – Criminally negligent homicide | E Felony.
130.25 – Rape 3rd degree | E Felony.
130.53 – Persistent sexual abuse | E Felony.
130.65A – Aggravated sexual abuse 4th degree | E Felony.
130.85 – Female genital mutilation | E Felony.
135.10 – Unlawful imprisonment 1st degree | E Felony.
135.50 – Custodial interference 1st degree | E Felony.
135.55 – Substitution of children | E Felony.
150.05 – 4th degree Arson | E Felony.
178.15 – 3rd degree Criminal diversion of prescription medications and prescriptions | E Felony.
220.28 – Use of a child to commit a controlled substance offense | E Felony.
240.06 – Riot 1st degree | E Felony.
240.15 – Criminal anarchy | E Felony.
240.61 – Placing a false bomb or hazardous substance 2nd degree | E Felony.
250.45 – Unlawful surveillance 2nd degree | E felony (Hidden cams for sexual gratification).
255.25 – Incest 3rd degree | E Felony.
263.11 – Possessing an obscene sexual performance by a child | E Felony.
263.16 – Possessing a sexual performance by a child | E Felony.
June, we are not ashamed to stand up for our rights. You have no understanding of the 2nd Amendment, you should be ashamed of your own ignorance.
"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
Notice it says well regulated Militia, not well regulated arms. About arms, it says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A gun ban is not regulation, it is infringement.
Also, I doubt you know who the Militia is, but The Father of the Bill of Rights, George Mason did. He said this:
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
We care not about a gun manufacturer's profits, we care about our rights!
Danny
James Madison is the Father of the Bill of Right not George Mason.
Thank You Mr. Bloomberg for kicking NRA ass and putting this loose canon organization in their place. the danger of the NRA is their lack of humanity. They exist for profit and consist of pimped outs for the weapons makers. They are willing to kill for profit.
This is a world of humans and run by humans which humans must be owned by reverence for life, not profit.
I'm glad you think that billionaire tyrant who bans large sodas and treats you like one of his subjects is one of your heroes. I'm sure you cried real hard when Hugo Chavez died too.
This troll needs some help with anger management.
A "Pyrrhic victory" must be an ACTUAL victory to be one.
@Daddy_Love, you've got a point.
Daddylove
Do you know what a Pyrrhic victory means? Here's a definition
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Pyrrhic+victory
Further more saying Bunker Hill was a Pyrrhic victory is insane. The Continental Army basically sneak out of Boston at night with nary a shot fired. I know because I've read first hand British accounts of the Battle.
I read it to mean that the gun-nuts were calling Losquadro's victory Pyrrhic (But not expressed well), because he sacrificed so much of his goodwill to acheive it.
MariaBlumberg, Daddy Love is correct in that declaring "this is a pyrrhic victory for us" is something that the winner - not the loser - might say. Had they said "they won a pyrrhic victory", it would have made grammatical/historical sense, at least - even though it would have been just as lacking in common sense.
largenose, I think the more likely explanation is that they were using a phrase that they did not, themselves, understand.
As Steve said, "they declared victory anyway."
"I think the more likely explanation is that they were using a phrase that they did not, themselves, understand"
pld
Exactly. They're using that phrase incorrectly and it bothers the heck out me in particular in conjunction with the Battle of Bunker Hill. It's like when Inigo Montoya said "I don't think that word means wwhat you think it means"
Is there anything they do understand correctly?
To steal somebody else's comment from the earlier thread that used to have the video from which the first photo was taken:
Nothing says "responsible gun ownership" like a shot-up campaign sign.
Give the parents at Sandy Hook a couple of years to get over their loss. They will at some point like a pit bull, they will tear the leg off the NRA. It will happen fast.
The worst thing that can happen to a person is to lose a child in the family. The NRA thinks this will pass but If you lose a child, you never forget.
I have flown rc airplanes. You have to be in the AMA because they are the insurance. If you hit someone with an airplane they pay for the damages.
Sandy Hooks shooter was a member of the NRA and so was the owner of the gun. The NRA has liabilty. We have to look at how many people in the U.S. were shot but members of the NRA. How many people took their own lives that were members of the NRA.
Sue the NRA and it does not matter if you win. Make the suits last as long as possible. Hit the NRA where they are the strongest, in the pocketbook. The NRA is evil and don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
Paranoid much? At what point and for what reason would the government come after law-abiding citizens? How long does an individual, even a heavily armed one, think he can hold them off if they did come after him? Police generally frown upon cop-killers and I can't imagine of a scenario where it would end well the the gun lover.
Since even opponents of gun-control are supposedly in favor of mental health checks, maybe people diagnosed as being clinically paranoid (if there is such a thing - if there isn't, it should be) should be banned from owning guns as well (as the others deemed unfit). Note that this isn't a case of where he is afraid that his guns will be confiscated or that there's going to be a national database, his one word answer is to justify the need for large capacity magazines, and it's not because criminals might have an assault weapon, it's because he wants to be able to take on the government. This answer to Patricia Campbell's question shows that what opponents to gun control really mean when they state the typical talking point that "if you ban assault weapons only criminals will have them" is "if you ban assault weapons only the government will have them (and maybe some criminals)."
Brewer Patriot -- Your analysis fits with yesterday's report from USA Today via Southern Poverty Law Center http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/03/05/southern-poverty-law-center-militias-gun-control/1964411/ that there are twice as many "anti-government militia groups" as existed in the middle 1990's. So, in effect, those paranoid militia-ers are trying to preserve their perceived Constitutional "right" to stockpile weapons and ammo in order to "defend" themselves against some kind of government takeover? I doubt if "defend" is the accurate term.
Someone (perhaps the FBI and the ATF) needs to re-frame their identity into a group of domestic terrorists and, yes, pass some sort of law against stockpiling weapons with the purpose of killing government and law enforcement employees. We don't need any more Oklahoma City bombers in the form of mass politically motivated shooters.
So, in effect, those paranoid militia-ers are trying to preserve their perceived Constitutional "right" to stockpile weapons and ammo in order to "defend" themselves against some kind of government takeover? I doubt if "defend" is the accurate term.
They're fighting for the right to Keep America Safe For White People.
The 2nd Amendment is for every American, not just white people, ignorant liberal...
But it's the traitorous Neo-Confederates who are grossly abusing it...which you already knew, of course.
Well, they FAILED to unseat this guy, so their victory, so-called, is quite non-existent.
I fear the gun nuts far more than I fear the government.
"several upstate counties are either debating or have passed motions that call for overturning the safe act law."...Several??? there are now 50 counties that have passed resolutions against the law!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
How does that make you feel Bob...
Resolutions are not laws. They are expressions of opinion and emotion. News flash. Federal law trumps state law per the U.S. Constitution; state law trumps local law. Get over it and find something useful to do with your life.
There are 62 counties in New York State. The blog post we are commenting on lists seven counties as passing or considering resolutions against the law.
The phrase you put in quotations - "several upstate counties" - does not appear in this blog post. You understand what quotation marks are for, right? They are for quoting the exact words of somebody else.
"50 counties have passed resolutions against the law", eh?
You, sir, are a liar.
@Bob, I'd like to build a list of all the counties that have passed resolutions. Please send the names of one you know about that aren't here. And thank you.
I'm very proud to live in NY.
Cuomo had to take his bar exam 5 times... how is it possible that he can write legislation and get it signed by the majority of state lawmakers who admit they signed it without even reading it?
NY State under Cuomo Governorship:
570 jobs lost-Sikorsky Aircraft-closed
174 jobs lost -Dal-Tile Corp-closed
592 jobs lost- Archcare Inc-closing
375 jobs lost- Ralcorp- closing 2 plants
84 jobs lost- Vette Thermal Solutions – moving to NH
350 jobs lost -Daikin McQuay-moving Auburn plant to Tennessee
86 jobs lost-Oberdorfer foundry in DeWitt, NY is closing in May
65 jobs lost - Advanced Monolythic Ceramics in Olean – moving to CA
35 jobs lost-Bombardier Mass transit – closing
50 jobs lost-Spectrum Plastics – closing
160 jobs lost-Menands company (Albany International) – moving to NH by end of 2013
Remington considering relocating out of NY
As more politicians who are in favor of gun regulation retain their seats or get elected, the NRA is diminished. The president of the NRA has helped to damage their reputation and make it easier for politicians to support gun laws. If the trend continues, the NRA will become a paper tiger and we will see more reasonable gun laws get passed.
It seems strange to compare the backlash against the new gun control law in New York and the backlash against marriage equality.
In one instance, New York was expanding the rights of their citizens. In the other, New York was limiting the rights of their citizens. How is this even remotely the same?
Hey, Mr. "anarcho-syndicalist", tell us again how background checks should be eliminated rather than expanded.
And I can't get a drivers' license if I am incapacitated in some way -- vision, certain brain or neurological conditions, in Arizona, even one DUI and I can't drive for a while. OMIGOD! My "rights" are being violated because I am being screened!!!! Call the Society for Universal Automobile Operation for a legal defense!!!
"Anarcho-syndicalist" -- what a great name for the domestic terrorists who plan to stockpile an infinite number of weapons and ammunition so they can live out their sick fantasies of attacking the agents of government oppression -- what -- the FBI? the ATF? And they characterize themselves as the patriotic ones? Laughable at best; terrifying in reality.
scottsdale bubbe
I think Entropy may have been referring to this quote from Monty Python & the Holy Grail
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0071853/quotes?qt=qt0470625
In his Twitter profile, he describes himself as such:
https://twitter.com/alvagoldbook
Dear Alva: please remove head from ass before commenting.
But thanks for doing such sterling work in putting the lie to the ancient anti-Semitic smear that all Jews are really smart.
In January, the New York State Legislature passed the “SAFE” (Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement) Act. The act was debated in closed session without committee hearings, and Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed it into law within an hour of its passage — after waiving the required three-day public comment period. This 80 page legislation was passed late into the night… literally and figuratively under the cover of darkness. There existed no exigent need as claimed, of the Act’s 60 sections, only three took effect on its adoption into law.
This legislation does not have the support of our law enforcement community, which the legislature failed to consult or exempt, despite being tasked with its enforcement. In fact, the NY State Sheriffs Association has specifically opposed the act, which criminalizes heretofore legal arms, magazines, and heavily restricts ammunition purchases, leaving NY state residents without legal access to, or unknowingly subject to criminal penalty for possession of, items that can be purchased over-the-counter in each of NY’s contiguous states. The New York State Association of County Clerks and the New York State Association of Counties have also passed resolutions opposing the NY SAFE act.
In the wake of this legislation being signed into law, 50 of New York’s 62 counties have either passed, or are in the process of passing, resolutions calling for the repeal of the SAFE Act. The fact that Essex County has not weighed in on this issue, gives the impression that this legislation has Essex County’s tacit approval.
Whatever your position may be on the SAFE Act itself you should seek to allow New York’s citizens to have the voice that Governor Cuomo and the state legislature silenced.
scottdale, I don't recall the right to drive a car being enshrined into the Constitution. Yes, the 2nd amendment really is a thing.
"Yes, the 2nd amendment really is a thing."
Lol! I suppose the "anarcho-syndicalist" thinks he has said something there. He doesn't seem to realize that stringing words together does not automatically constitute a coherent thought. He also ignores (as do all of the Gun Cult) the reality that whatever rights are contained in the 2nd Amenment (or the 1st, for that matter), they cannot, as a practical matter, be absolute. As an "anarcho-syndicalist", he might want to pretend that they are.
Glad to see the people standing up for their rights. All to often people lay down and accept the edicts passed by those in power. In the end, this unconstitutional law may not be changed, but at least the people fought the good fight.
From the Republican dictionary:
Unconstitutional Law - a law that I don't like.
I'm a Libertarian, thanks for asking.
And this law is unconstitutional, so is NDAA the Patriot Act and Obama's ability to murder US Citizens on US soil
Are you also a constitutional lawyer, or were you just making a knee-jerk reaction? I know that I do not have the knowledge to declare that the law either is or is not constitutional. I also know that when I hear somebody using that word, pretty much every single time, they are using it precisely as I defined it.
If this law is unconstitutional, I look forward to seeing it challenged in court on that basis. Until then, you are speaking through your ass.
Read.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
For the record, I am not a "fair weather constitutionalist" (I just made that up).
What I mean by that is speak up whenever any of our constitutional laws are infringed upon. Not like some hypocrites that are for individual liberties when it effects them, but against them when the disagree with the cause. A great current example of that is gun rights advocates that are against gay marriage. Either you believe in individual liberty, or you are part of the problem.
Which are you?
@Eduardo, it's also worth mentioning that the memos/actions you're referring to have to do with targeting those who have allied themselves with terrorist operations on foreign soil, not domestic.
Interestingly enough, Eduardo, I believe in individual liberty - including our Second Amendment rights. I just don't see that amendment as precluding any and all restrictions on gun ownerships, unlike what the usual "gun rights advocate" seems to believe.
Surely there is a continuum between "ban all firearms" and "everybody should be allowed to have a personal nuclear arsenal", eh?
Where do you place yourself on that continuum? And do you consider everybody to the "left" of you on that continuum to be "part of the problem", or is it possible that they might actually be considered reasonable people?
As I said, I have no opinion on whether the particular New York State law under discussion "infringes on one of our constitutional laws" (your words). If it does, it will be struck down as "unconstitutional". If not, it will stand - but I guarantee that people who don't like it will continue to refer to it as "unconstitutional", even if you, personally, stop using that term to describe it.
Until it is challenged on that basis, though, I STILL stand by my definition of how people use that term - and I remain unconvinced that you, personally, have any reason to use that word regarding this law.
The so-called Confederate States of America "fought the good fight"...at least to hear them tell it.
Juan, I read the entire 16 page memo weeks ago. However, subsequent to that Eric Holder elaborated the following:
" It is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States. "
This is a formal policy statement from our current administration.
Sorry, but that's just wrong.
http://www.salon.com/2013/03/05/yes_the_president_can_kill_americans_on_u_s_soil/
Hope this helps.
pld1762 - I guess if a SCOTUS decision isn't enough to convince you than I have little hope. You have not convinced me that this law is constitutional. From my point of view, the same logic you applied to those that feel it is unconstitutional could be applied to you as well, you are clearly allowing bias to taint your opinion. Not singling you out though, we all do that including myself. It just so happens that I have SCOTUS precedent on my side in this particular case.
The courts may issue an injunction against NY SAFE in the coming days do the waiving of the 3 day waiting period. And the second lawsuit seeks to repeal it entirely so I guess we’ll just wait and see.
That being said, there are a number of compromises I (since I don't speak for all 2A advocates) would be willing to make in the interests of public safety. I won't go into all of the details but I will say that I think universal background checks are a good thing. I wasn't even aware that there was this "gun show loophole". I say if you want a gun, go through the back ground checks.
There are more that I agree with, I just wanted to give an example. The problem is, they went too far with the provisions of the law.
Eduardo, I read the article you pointed me to. In particular, I studied the "Decision". And I'm just not seeing what you think you see.
Nice of you to slam me as "clearly allowing bias to taint my opinion." Considering that the only thing you know about my "opinion" is that I stated that "I just don't see that amendment as precluding any and all restrictions on gun ownerships", I'd be very interested to see what you think my "bias" is, since you don't have the first idea of which restrictions that I, personally, think are reasonable.
Well, you are coming across rather biased. Need I remind you you passed judgement on me first inferring that the only reason I thought it was unconstitutional is because I did not like it.
Also, it's not what I "think I see", it's what the SCOTUS decided. If you study their decision, and you study the provisions of the NY SAFE ACT, you will see that there are parts of it that are clearly in contradiction to the decision.
Anyway, I do not engage in internet squabbles. I meant when I said, "Not singling you out though, we all do that including myself." So if I insulted you, you have my apologies. Have a good evening.
You can always tell a Looneytarian, but you can't tell him much, especially when he really needs to get over himself.
Regulating magazines to 7 (when most common handguns carry 10-20) is the rough equivalent of regulating the width of abortion clinic hallways 3 feet wider than whatever they normally are
Lol! Gun Cult silliness.
HAHAHA Great one there ER! You really showed me!
e-Thug - An internet thug. They usually sound very tough and scary. Does not show people who they are in public. Probably got picked on in school, comes online to higher their self-esteem. Talks a-lot of non-sense around the area of insulting your mommy to penis size. Stays behind the monitor so nothing can hurt them.
It's the Peewee Herman defense again! I must really have touched a nerve!
Was the Democrat(a former Republican) in this race in favor of allowing guns in glove compartments of law abiding citizens(as is allowed in most states) otherwise I'm not exactly sure what another local race in a generally anti gun locale means for most of us. If Rand Paul or Mark Warner or Marsha Blackburn or even perhaps a rural Pennsylvania or NY candidate are defeated by a gun control candidate let us know.
Towns:
City of Ogdensburg, Town of Argyle, Town of Cambridge, Town of Chester, Town of Clarendon, Town of Colden, Town of Conesus, Town of Deerpark, Town of Elbridge, Town of Grand Island, Town of Harrisburg, Town of Hoosick, Town of Indian Lake, Town of Jackson, Town of Libson, Town of Linclaen, Town of Marathon, Town of Neversink, Town of Palmyra, Town of Riga, Town of Saratoga, Town of Sempronius, Town of Shandaken, Town of Stafford, Town of Thompson, Town of Truxton, Town of Union Vale, Town of Walworth, Town of Warwick, Town of Wawarsing [news]
Law Enforcement
Albany Sheriff Craig Apple, Dutchess County Deputy Sheriffs PBA, Erie County Sheriff's Police Benevolent Association, Greene County Sheriff, New York State Sheriffs' Association, Saratoga County Sheriff's Association, Schuyler County Sheriff, Steuben County Deputy Sheriff's Association
Other
New York State Association of County Clerks, Association of Erie County Governments, NY Association of Counties, NYS Conference of Local Mental Hygiene Directors, Washington County Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs
Governor Cuomo is dividing the state and polarizing rural voters and citizens of New York. He has tried to imply that those opposed to the SAFE act are fringe elements or extremists. To the contrary, they are the people of New York State. Below are the New York State counties, towns and law enforcement agencies who have passed or are passing resolutions against Cuomo’s SAFE ACT:
Counties
Allegany County, Broome County, Cattaraugus County, Cayuga County, Chautauqua County, Chemung County, Chenango County, Clinton County, Columbia County, Cortland County, Delaware County, Dutchess County, Erie County, Essex County, Franklin County, Fulton County, Genesee County, Greene County, Hamilton County, Herkimer County, Jefferson County, Lewis County, Livingston County, Madison County, Monroe County, Montgomery County, Niagara County, Oneida County, Onondaga County, Ontario County, Orange County, Orleans County, Oswego County, Otsego County, Putnam County, Rensselaer County, Rockland County, Saint Lawrence County, Saratoga County, Schoharie County, Schuyler County, Seneca County, Steuben County, Sullivan County, Tioga County, Ulster County, Warren County, Washington County, Wayne County, Wyoming County, Yates County
Regardless of your stance on gun control, in the context of the second amendment "well regulated" refers to being well trained or well maintained. Given the authors' writings on the organized and unorganized militias, it is rather apparent that well regulated does not refer to a restriction on arms other than to require they be in good working condition.
You are correct David, this has been well established for some time.