New Yorks new reality.

Hoofan is correct and thus has SCOTUS repeatedly ruled. Were a law to read "It being abhorrent to God and good men, the people shall not kill " atheists and bad men would not be exempted from the prohibition. Were the Second Amendment to read "Recognizing the Moon is made of green cheese, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed ", the operative clause would remain in effect. The militia part of the clause may or may not have been compromise language to get the second part of the clause passed but as Hoofan notes, the right is ascribed to "the people " not to members of a well regulated militia.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

http://newsandinsight.thomsonreuter..._-_March/Judge_refuses_to_block_N_Y__gun_law/

First case decided for the State. This was a longshot given existing case law on the "message of necessity ". Again, the law and logic are only distantly connected...

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

Half? you got to be kidding...I'l bet >10% will register...NY gun owners are MAD.

Bubbles said:

Right now I'm looking at NY and CO and shaking my head...

Click to expand...

Believe me, I'm pissed out here with these new laws pending... but our laws are still MUCH better than those of NY. The shooters in NY are in for a very rough ride.

AlbertH
Regarding reading the whole constitution, Congress has the power to form the militia, but the militia is responsible for supplying itself. The militia also consists of the citizenry, thus "the people" have a right to arms.
Im posting from my phone so I can't look this up, but
The militia act of 1903 says the reserve militia or unorganized militia consists of every able bodied man between 17-45.
The government has said who the militia is. Everyone one of us is the militia.

@AlbertH.

Here is what the Supreme Court said about the militia, in Heller:

The “militia” comprised all males physically
capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists
feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in
order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing
army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress
power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear
arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.

So to answer your question, YES, I am in the militia. And the Bill of Rights guarantees me the ancient right of individiuals to keep and and bear arms.

Is there any part of this that you feel the Court got wrong?

Great... he violated the state's law, and then he violated federal law by selling to someone he could reasonably be a prohibited person.

The NY AG's office has been quite proactive in monitoring gun shows and possibly internet broker sites for potential violations of NY and Federal laws. This only reinforces that responsible gun owners need to be aware of the laws that were enacted.

It also emphasizes why we need to band together and work to change them.

docsleepy said:

No the real question is why any non-indicted gun owner would have his rights infringed by such a requirement. Second Amendment.

Click to expand...

How are they able to know whether you are a responsible gun owner who is allowed by law to own weapons, if they are not allowed to do background checks?

Ask you to provide an honest answer to the question?

There isn't a criminal out there who would say "NO" to that very question

You know guys that the whole drive behind Fienstien, Brady etc to make "Mr and Mrs America hand em all in". Has nothing to do with law, constitution, protecting people or common sense. It is driven by the fact that these people are irrationally scared of guns and are in position to bully us and take our guns. Nothing more nothing less. Fienstien is a bitter old lady hell bent on getting her own way.

Rant over. We also have to look back at history to understand why the constitution even bothers to have a second amendment. England had at one time a similar law that stated it was the responsibility of every freeman to maintain sufficient arms and ammunition to protect the realm. Our founding fathers took this amended it to the second amendment. Why you ask. I believe for two reasons, firstly at the time the tax base was pretty small and standing armies were very expensive. Militia's were a common part of any country's defense plan. Secondly the founding fathers were concerned about a congress or senate or President who was or were a plant by England. It was essential that the People maintained arms to protect themselves from a enemy within.

Do we still need to protect the country with a hurriedly formed Militia, yes we might. After all just 60 years ago Yamoto famously said his blade of grass comment. Do we still need to protect our selves from a homegrown enemy government. If it can happen else where trust me it can happen here so yes.

As for private sales requiring background checks. Open up NICS to all if that's what you want. Don't force us to use dealers. The way it seems to be set up is that the dealer acts as a broker and takes a commission. Hell no no way. It also is a back door registration program. The biggest hurdle to complete and total removal of all guns from civilian ownership is not knowing where they all are. You have to get the people to register them first. That's enough to get my spidy senses tingling. Fienstien wants all guns not just the AR.

Of course your average gangbanger or nut job is not even aware that we are fighting for our rights. They don't give a damn about the law or rights of the individual till they get caught.

It is driven by the fact that these people are irrationally scared of guns and are in position to bully us and take our guns.

Click to expand...

I don't take issue with your general point, but I think you're a little off the mark here. These people aren't afraid of guns in general. They're surrounded by people with guns every day whose job is to protect them. They would put up just as much fuss if we tried to take guns away from their protectors.

They don't believe "MR. and Mrs. America" should be able to have any guns at all. They know nothing they do will ever actually disarm criminals, but that's not what they want. They don't want you, or anyone they can't personally approve of or control, to have any guns at all. They know the laws will only disarm you, not the criminals, and that's the point.

Tom Gresham of Gun Talk put it best: once we accept the notion of "bad guns" the standard for which will continually drop until nothing is legal. This is a generational strategy and we can see its successes first in California. Review the history of various rifles and how they forced registration and promised no confiscation.

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/xcibviewitem.asp?id=195

GoWolfpack said:

I don't take issue with your general point, but I think you're a little off the mark here. These people aren't afraid of guns in general. They're surrounded by people with guns every day whose job is to protect them. They would put up just as much fuss if we tried to take guns away from their protectors.

They don't believe "MR. and Mrs. America" should be able to have any guns at all. They know nothing they do will ever actually disarm criminals, but that's not what they want. They don't want you, or anyone they can't personally approve of or control, to have any guns at all. They know the laws will only disarm you, not the criminals, and that's the point.

Click to expand...

Don't worry eventually they will get around to criminals, but first they want to cut off the supply of guns.
I would get into stamp and coin collecting as guns will be pretty horrible investment. With fewer and fewer people having opportunity to enjoy shooting sports it's just matter of time.

After seeing what New York laws have become, I wonder how you can be a legal gun owner and obey the Laws of New York?
I think it would be time to seriously consider moving to a free State.
I'm very much begining to believe that Barry Goldwater was right about the Liberal North East; We should saw it off and let it float in to the Atlantic.

Ah, just wait Averageman. The Progressive Liberals have a plan for Texas. It involves an influx of Progressives, new immigration regulations and a reminder that the Progressives made it all happen. Austin will be the new normal for Texas.

I've said it before. It's coming to your state soon.

Averageman said:

After seeing what New York laws have become, I wonder how you can be a legal gun owner and obey the Laws of New York?
I think it would be time to seriously consider moving to a free State.
I'm very much begining to believe that Barry Goldwater was right about the Liberal North East; We should saw it off and let it float in to the Atlantic.

Click to expand...

Lots of excellent information here. Which states would you include in your "floating island"? And would you follow state lines or geological features?

The AG of NY said in that article how dangerous it was to the people of NY that the person was selling illegal assault rifles. Which were legal 7 days prior.

Here's the reality, this is taken from a NY Time's article in Jan.:

"Gun rights advocates argue that Mr. Cuomo is wrong to focus his attention on assault weapons; of 769 homicides in New York State in 2011, only five were committed with rifles of any kind, according to the State Division of Criminal Justice Services."

So, who's BS'ing who? The Attorney General, Schneiderman, is fully aware of those stats, but as a politician, continues to spread the lie.

Now based on the prices the guy was selling them for, one could argue that was criminal, but that's another story.

"How are they able to know whether you are a responsible gun owner who is allowed by law to own weapons, if they are not allowed to do background checks?"

I think you have this exactly backwards.

I AM a "responsible gun owner who is allowed by law to own weapons" until adjudicated otherwise.

The onus should ALWAYS be on "them" to prove I am incapable of safely observing my pre-existing rights.

Try your question again with 1st or 4th amendment rights considered.

P