NY: Time To Fight!

This is a discussion on NY: Time To Fight! within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by Hopyard Clearly not. That's why you don't have nationwide recognition of your license; it is why the states vary wildly in what ...

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 51
Like Tree56Likes

Thread: NY: Time To Fight!

  1. #31
    VIP Member Array 1MoreGoodGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Fort Worth, Texas
    Posts
    5,961
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Clearly not. That's why you don't have nationwide recognition of your license; it is why the states vary wildly in what they
    allow and disallow. Now that 2A has been "incorporated" it means the states are bound by 2A's boundaries, whatever they are.

    So far all we know about the boundaries of 2A as it applies to the states come from a handful of Supreme Court cases which have
    effectively clarified NOTHING at all. No one knows what "reasonable regulation" (as used by Scalia ) means in a practical sense. A national 2A protection act could spell that out.

    Meanwhile you can bet the courts will almost always define reasonable regulation as whatever a state legislature decided.
    And some like IL, NJ, NY, Hawaii, Maryland and MA, are--or will-- go far past what folks who post here think is reasonable.

    If Congress would take the bull by the horns they could define (instead of waiting for piecemeal rulings by various courts)
    what the boundaries are for "reasonable regulation" and thus give the courts and everyone else guidance on this issue.

    Like it or not, in our present world, "shall not infringe" is a phrase with no defined meaning. A national law defining
    what constitutes infringement and what constitutes legitimate regulation would be a huge step in the right direction.

    As always, there will be compromises some don't like, but we'd end up ahead of the game and do away with our
    crazy quilt of 50 state laws that are so inconsistent with one another a license holder from PA can get arrested in neighboring
    NJ and hung with a 7 year sentence for nothing more than possessing a single hollow point.

    IF NRA and some of the other advocacy groups would get their heads out of the partisan arena and start thinking
    about what is needed maybe we'd make some progress.
    The phrase "shall not be infringed" has one and only one meaning and it is very specific. That phrase and the meanings of the words that make up that phrase in the 2nd amendment are not within anyone's power to redefine...the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are not "living documents" with words whose meanings change over the course of time. We don't need nor do we want a "2nd amendment protection act". Our Rights are already protected. Our Rights are inherent and unalienable.

    The 10th amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

    I'll post this again for you since you might have missed it: People will eventually move from the States which suppress freedoms and will take up residence in the States which promote freedom and doesn't hinder a person's ability to protect and defend themselves and their family.

    When (not if) people start doing this on a consistent basis, the States which suppress freedoms will need to change in order to prosper.

    "When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security..."
    SigPapa226, HotGuns and Ghost1958 like this.
    Regards,
    1MoreGoodGuy
    NRA Life Member
    GOA Life Member


    Behave Like Someone Who is Determined to be FREE!

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #32
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,602
    Quote Originally Posted by 1MoreGoodGuy View Post
    The phrase "shall not be infringed" has one and only one meaning and it is very specific.
    Perhaps, but that is not the opinion of the present Supreme Court, and it has not been the opinion of prior courts at both the
    State and Federal level. So we have to deal with the Pandora's box, "regulation," opened by Scalia in Heller.

    Clearly The Supremes have no intention of interpreting 2A as anything goes. Well, if it is not "anything goes" we need
    some defined boundaries. Only Congress can provide that.
    Doghandler likes this.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  4. #33
    VIP Member Array 1MoreGoodGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Fort Worth, Texas
    Posts
    5,961
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Perhaps, but that is not the opinion of the present Supreme Court, and it has not been the opinion of prior courts at both the
    State and Federal level. So we have to deal with the Pandora's box, "regulation," opened by Scalia in Heller.

    Clearly The Supremes have no intention of interpreting 2A as anything goes. Well, if it is not "anything goes" we need
    some defined boundaries. Only Congress can provide that.
    Not "Perhaps"...it is a FACT...The phrase "shall not be infringed" has one and only one meaning and it is very specific. We do not need to define any more boundaries.

    Rights can not be taken from you. You either choose not to exercise them or you are forced into a position where you are unable to freely exercise your Rights. Forcing people into a position where they are unable to freely exercise their Rights is called slavery.

    People will only permit the government to force them so far into slavery before they are willing to give up their life protecting and defending their Rights and their freedom.

    Is there a level or degree of slavery that you support?
    Regards,
    1MoreGoodGuy
    NRA Life Member
    GOA Life Member


    Behave Like Someone Who is Determined to be FREE!

  5. #34
    Distinguished Member Array noway2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    1,844
    And this is where the checks and balances part comes into play. The courts role is to interpret the laws, which they have done. If the interpretation is incorrect, it is incumbent upon congress to draft new laws or amend existing ones to countermand that interpretation. In this regard, Hopyard is correct, what is needed is a congressional bill that protects the 2A.
    Doghandler and Hopyard like this.

  6. #35
    VIP Member
    Array ksholder's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    3,886
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Perhaps, but that is not the opinion of the present Supreme Court, and it has not been the opinion of prior courts at both the
    State and Federal level. So we have to deal with the Pandora's box, "regulation," opened by Scalia in Heller.

    Clearly The Supremes have no intention of interpreting 2A as anything goes. Well, if it is not "anything goes" we need
    some defined boundaries. Only Congress can provide that.
    Government will not provide that - period. Not SCOTUS, not Congress and not the President. The feds have shown quite clearly over the last 200-210 years that they have no intention to be bound by the restrictions placed on them by the Constitution. This started with Marshall and has grown in size and complexity since, but it is just the way it is. Government is, simply, not the answer.
    It's the Land of Opportunity, not the Land of Entitlements - Vote America!!!

    "When governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny." Thomas Jefferson

    You are only paranoid until you are right - then you are a visionary.

  7. #36
    VIP Member
    Array OldVet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    S. Florida, north of the Miami mess, south of the Mouse trap
    Posts
    15,980
    Quote Originally Posted by BugDude View Post
    There is no enumerated constitutional right to diabetic coma enducing buckets of soda.
    Falls into that "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" clause. I like a large soda on occasion, and should have the liberty to drink one if I so choose. Big sodas may make you happy and cause no harm to anyone else.
    Retired USAF E-8. Remember: You're being watched!
    Paranoia strikes deep, into your heart it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid... "For What It's Worth" Buffalo Springfield

  8. #37
    Senior Member Array boscobeans's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    upstate new york
    Posts
    1,176
    Quote Originally Posted by OldVet View Post
    If NY'ers rolled over and died for 16 oz sodas, what makes you think guns will be any different?
    There's more than 19 million people who live in New York State.
    New York State covers more than 54 thousand sqaure miles.

    Only only 8 million people live in the 300 square miles that must limit the size of their soft drinks(NEW YORK CITY).

    The other 11.5 million of us live free and clear of Bloomberg's hell on the other 54,200 square miles and over a million (Yup more than a million) of us have permits to own and carry handguns. And a very large percent have more than a few handguns. Everyone I know has rifles and shotguns for hunting, recreation and self defense.

    Remember more than 30 percent of the battles fought in the Revolutionary War were fought in NEW YORK...

    Not all New Yorkers are rollover's and there is a battle brewing here.

    OMO

    bosco
    Ghost1958 likes this.

  9. #38
    Distinguished Member Array Doghandler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    West Branch
    Posts
    1,948

    Re: NY: Time To Fight!

    Maybe we will never know what 2A means, or what the Constitution means, for that matter. Maybe it is just a road to drive on with barriers and construction delays just like every road.
    Hopyard likes this.
    There is a solution but we are not Jedi... not yet.
    Doghandler

  10. #39
    BAC
    BAC is offline
    VIP Member Array BAC's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    2,292
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    If Congress would take the bull by the horns they could define (instead of waiting for piecemeal rulings by various courts)
    what the boundaries are for "reasonable regulation" and thus give the courts and everyone else guidance on this issue.
    It is neither a function or power of Congress to determine reasonable regulation of rights. Their powers are strictly defined by the Constitution; like it or not, it was designed with individual States with differing laws in mind, hence the 10th Amendment and the limited scope of federal power.
    RIP, Jeff Dorr: 1964 - July 17, 2009. You will be missed.


    Defensive Carry Search Tips


    Step 1 - Choose a subforum on right side under "Search in Forum(s)"
    Step 2 - Type general topic of interest in "Search by Keyword" textbox.
    Step 3 - Read results and refine/repeat as necessary.

  11. #40
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,602
    Quote Originally Posted by ksholder View Post
    Government will not provide that - period. Not SCOTUS, not Congress and not the President. The feds have shown quite clearly over the last 200-210 years that they have no intention to be bound by the restrictions placed on them by the Constitution. This started with Marshall and has grown in size and complexity since, but it is just the way it is. Government is, simply, not the answer.
    Well then, what is the answer? I'm asking because the only things I seem to read about here are veiled threats of massive
    "law breaking."

    Again, Congress has a right and a duty to protect 2A by defining for us, what the boundaries of the word "infringement"
    are given that Scalia has said regulations aren't infringement. Congress could legislate about any set of boundaries They could go to extremes in either direction--- but that usually isn't how a law turns out. Usually, it is some middle ground.

    OK Here are some ideas for middle ground.

    National recognition of licenses.
    Each State may regulate magazine capacity for handguns, rifles and shotguns, separately, but NOT below 10 for handguns
    and pistols and rifles, or 5 for shotgun-- other than for consistency with existing game laws. OK, that doesn't mean Uncle
    has outlawed high cap; it doesn't mean the states have to do it. It just defines what would be an unconstitutional infringement.

    Background checks on all transfers. In convenient, expensive, and long overdue. Since Congress has already specified
    these for new purchases, they could just expand it to all transfers.

    No license or registration needed on rifles--- unless they are capable of holding more than 20 rounds in which case the sate
    MAY require a license and or registration. That solves many of the complaints and fears about NATIONAL registration, and it
    doesn't mandate registration---leaves it to the states.

    No license or registration needed on shotguns unless they are capable of holding more than 5 rounds and the state allows
    that; in which case a state MAY but is not obligated to require a license /registration. Again, no Federal limitations are put in place
    but the boundaries of what the states may due --and what constitutes infringement get defined.


    Semi-automatic guns may not be made illegal or require licensing or registration if their magazine capacity is 10 or below.

    Congress could of course play with those numbers and no doubt would, but the point I want to make is that
    without Congress taking action to protect 2A by defining the "regulations" which are allowable and by inference
    the regulations which are "infringement," we are open to the whims of 50 state legislatures, the governing body of DC,
    and the whims of the courts.

    This present situation is not tolerable. It has to change, and it can't change to the utopian constitutional carry because
    there is almost ZERO support for that in the general public and only partial support for that even within this DC community.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  12. #41
    VIP Member Array 1MoreGoodGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Fort Worth, Texas
    Posts
    5,961
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Well then, what is the answer? I'm asking because the only things I seem to read about here are veiled threats of massive
    "law breaking."

    Again, Congress has a right and a duty to protect 2A by defining for us, what the boundaries of the word "infringement"
    are given that Scalia has said regulations aren't infringement. Congress could legislate about any set of boundaries They could go to extremes in either direction--- but that usually isn't how a law turns out. Usually, it is some middle ground.

    OK Here are some ideas for middle ground.

    National recognition of licenses.
    Each State may regulate magazine capacity for handguns, rifles and shotguns, separately, but NOT below 10 for handguns
    and pistols and rifles, or 5 for shotgun-- other than for consistency with existing game laws. OK, that doesn't mean Uncle
    has outlawed high cap; it doesn't mean the states have to do it. It just defines what would be an unconstitutional infringement.

    Background checks on all transfers. In convenient, expensive, and long overdue. Since Congress has already specified
    these for new purchases, they could just expand it to all transfers.

    No license or registration needed on rifles--- unless they are capable of holding more than 20 rounds in which case the sate
    MAY require a license and or registration. That solves many of the complaints and fears about NATIONAL registration, and it
    doesn't mandate registration---leaves it to the states.

    No license or registration needed on shotguns unless they are capable of holding more than 5 rounds and the state allows
    that; in which case a state MAY but is not obligated to require a license /registration. Again, no Federal limitations are put in place
    but the boundaries of what the states may due --and what constitutes infringement get defined.


    Semi-automatic guns may not be made illegal or require licensing or registration if their magazine capacity is 10 or below.

    Congress could of course play with those numbers and no doubt would, but the point I want to make is that
    without Congress taking action to protect 2A by defining the "regulations" which are allowable and by inference
    the regulations which are "infringement," we are open to the whims of 50 state legislatures, the governing body of DC,
    and the whims of the courts.

    This present situation is not tolerable. It has to change, and it can't change to the utopian constitutional carry because
    there is almost ZERO support for that in the general public and only partial support for that even within this DC community.
    Here's an idea...

    NO!

    What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?
    SigPapa226 and Ghost1958 like this.
    Regards,
    1MoreGoodGuy
    NRA Life Member
    GOA Life Member


    Behave Like Someone Who is Determined to be FREE!

  13. #42
    Senior Member Array SigPapa226's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    588
    ^ What he said!

    Go read The Federalist Papers or Tin Foil Hats on this forum.

    Look at how much have we already lost in just 4 years. How much will we loose in the next 4 years?

    Not to mention that Obummer now claims the authority to kill any American Citizen that he declares to be a terrorist.
    1MoreGoodGuy and Ghost1958 like this.
    Ten Bears: It's sad that governments are chiefed by the double tongues. There is iron in your words of death for all Comanche to see, and so there is iron in your words of life. No signed paper can hold the iron. It must come from men.

  14. #43
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,847
    Magazine limitations are nothing but a utopian idea.There is nothing about them that makes sense.

    10 rounds,20 rounds,30 rounds...as somehow 30 rounds are more dangerous than 10. It's a stupid idea that is embraced by only ignorant fools and highly educated idiots.
    I would rather stand against the cannons of the wicked than against the prayers of the righteous.


    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/

  15. #44
    Distinguished Member Array noway2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    1,844
    I am inclined to agree with HotGuns on the capacity issue. I believe that the debate on what constitutes and acceptable limit is academic at best. I would also add to that, to paraphrase an argument I saw on a different forum, that attempting to regulate the number of rounds can impact the function of the firearm. The example case used being the Glock 17 which has also been in production for three decades, making it very much in common use. In fact, to attempt to regulate this to 10 rounds is to invalidate several technological innovations of the manufacturer for the specific purpose of increasing its capacity in response to military specifications. The reason that this particular aspect is pertinent is that the restriction impacts the absolute function of the gun and hence, magazine restrictions are not separate from the 2A as some antis might try to claim and do fall under its protection.

  16. #45
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,602
    Quote Originally Posted by BAC View Post
    It is neither a function or power of Congress to determine reasonable regulation of rights. Their powers are strictly defined by the Constitution; like it or not, it was designed with individual States with differing laws in mind, hence the 10th Amendment and the limited scope of federal power.
    That may sound nice to you, but it flies in the face of a variety of realities. And, Congress certainly does have
    a right and a duty to instruct the states as to what laws they (states) might pass which would be considered by Congress
    an infringement.

    I swear (well not really) most of the problems with gun laws that affect ordinary decent people adversely are due
    to stuff the states have done in apparent violation of 2A, and until Heller and incorporation of 2A there was nothing Congress
    could do to bring them back into line.

    It is the business of Congress to tell NY that in their opinion (assuming the reach such an opinion) a 7 round magazine
    limit is an infringement on 2A.

    The only body that can bring some balance and reason and uniformity to our national crazy quilt of gun laws is Congress,
    and they do have that power precisely if it is used to keep states from burrowing below a level of regulation at which
    2A rights are then infringed.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

fight ny gun law legislature

,

ny

,

nysrpa.org

Click on a term to search for related topics.