Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by GiorgioG, Jan 15, 2013.
What are possible legal options that can be pursued through the courts?
This is probably silly to consider, but I think it is past time for the United States to consider adding a 51st state to the union. I think that the disparities between metro NYC and the whole rest of the state from Albany - North & West deem it worthy fo the people of NY State to consider splitting up. The NYC metro zone can become their own little "Gun Free ********** of the East Coast" and keep their big government to tell them what to do and control their lives for them, while all the "upstaters" in the beautiful Adirondacks Mountain regions, Finger Lakes, etc. can for a New New York (or whatever they want to call it) and re-establish their way of life, constitutional rights, and more conservative, rural character.
Well, I can dream, can't I.
Good luck to you New York guys and gals - this really, really sucks.
elections have consequences......prove it at the ballot box.
Bloomberg, Cuomo, Spitzer, Koch...
Hmmm...I think I see a pattern. So, this is who New Yorkers vote for?? I guess Rudy was an anomally.
I feel sorry for you upstate and rural folks. You deserve better. Leave if you can, because politcally, I do not see it changing.
The problem is, we really need our conservative and moderate justices to stick around for at least 4 more years.... hopefully there isnt any turn over or even court challenges for the next 20 years will get mucked up.
Voting has consequences. There are people reading this now and here that voted for them.....
There is a chance that NY overreached so far there will be a backlash. The NRA should keep up a membership effort there.
I have to say that as a Saratoga county native, I am awfully proud of Kathy - especially given that she has only had a week on the job so to speak. This is a strong and gutsy stand.
The assembly "debate" was better. Anybody outside NY probably can not really understand the cultural division between upstate and downstate, and even Long Island to a lesser extent. The bills Assembly sponsor was Lentol, from a NYC district. To see what we faced, watch these:
Steve McLaughlin just dismantles the legislation during debate. Extra points for his statement when his vote is called for - "How dare you, how DARE you to put New Yorkers at risk".
Jim Tedisco gives the chamber a badly needed lesson on the Constitution and the Second Amendment. His statement before his vote was taken was actually interrupted, no doubt due to the dressing down he accomplished during debate. I am very proud to say that he is my representative in the NY Assembly.
It is exceptionally difficult to just not lose hope now in NY. I am a NRA and SAF member. I bring my sons fatherless friends to Appleseed shoots so they can experience the lessons of history and know the accomplishment of watching their AQT scores improve. I shop at the LGS to give them my support. I stood on the street corner last weekend in Saratoga to counter the anti-gun protests outside the gun show. I emailed and called my representatives before the legislation was introduced.
All of this was not enough. If law abiding citizens do all these things, and elected reps like Steve and Jim get up and speak the truth and expose this legislation for what it is, what is the outcome? Nothing but negative - the governor and legislature in NY have treated the gun owning citizens of NY with just complete contempt, not even allowing them a public comment period to let their voices be heard.
If there is anybody, anywhere that has any encouraging word for us in this despicable, deplorable, unjust state we sure could use it.
This is EXACTLY why the NRA should never have written off NY. NY thinks so goes NY so goes the country. A little help here in NY could have helped but they threw in the towel and now have to deal with other states picking up the NYS model and so they will have multiple battle fronts. Wake The F up! NRA!!!!
Blame the NRA for the complete failure of new york residents to run and elect gun friendly politicians.
Activism is much much more than voting every 4 years and sending 30 bucks a year to an organization to do the work for you and are surprised when you empire state residents get hosed.
Those of us in free states having been yelling at you about the slim politicians you elect to office and warning you the consequences. Like california you ignored the warnings and now you have to live with the consequences.
Quit whining about the NRA, dig your feet in, put your man pants back on and fight for cryin out loud. Fight hard.
This has nothing to do with man-pants and everything to do with the entire state being dictated by the will of the NYC area residents/politicians.
This is true of most states these days, from Cali to Maryland to Florida to Illinois - the large cities drive the politics of the state.
I am not blaming the NRA in this case, but if you think just working harder is going to help here, lets face some facts. NY is more or less 3 areas - Long Island, NYC/downstate and upstate (the rest of the state). NYC residents basically have little or no use for guns, and that is the way they want things to stay.
NYC has a population of about 8 million+. Lets put that into perspective - that is a population that is slightly larger than Virginia, or Idaho, Maine, New Hampshire, Montana, Alaska, Vermont and Wyoming - combined.
The upstate/LI area is about 11 million. So we need support of about 8 out of 10 voters to counter the NYC influence. Fighting hard is not going to get it done in NY, but fighting smart and putting lots of effort behind focused battles we can win just might help a bit.
Being old has its disadvantages, but I can still vaguely remember the Dec. 7th, 1941 attack on Pear Harbor, and the war that followed.
We were pretty much unprepared and got caught with our pants down. The Japanese strike was intended to wipe out our entire Pacific Fleet and Air Force assets in that area. It almost succeeded, but fortunately our aircraft carriers were at sea.
It took time for us to recover, and shift gears, but after getting badly beaten through 1942 and part of ’43 things changed. By mid-1945 a Japanese delegation was standing on the deck of a battleship in Tokyo Bay ready to surrender.
What we are going through now is a gun control advocates’ equivalent of the Pearl Harbor attack. We didn’t see it coming and were unprepared. Now there is a lot of confusion mixed with doom & gloom. Sure we have taken a hit, and it’s likely we will take some more. But by the time the 2014 elections come around I have no doubt that we will be in fighting trim. We have beaten the forces behind gun control before, and ultimately we will do it again.
For the moment we have to fight a holding action, and among other things burying legislatures under huge piles of mail is a good start. Laws like the one passed in New York will be challenged in court, but the actions must be carefully thought out and prepared.
The only sure way to lose is to simply give up. I for one won’t do it.
Fuff, that aught to be on our masthead! Beautiful and true.
You have got to be kidding me. Its been coming for years waiting for the right time.
Veterans of the struggle
For those of us who have taken an active role in fighting for our 2A rights for years, the event in NY is not any surprise.....ever listened to the mayor of NYC? RAbid, foaming at the mouth anti gunner.....NYC is to NY what Cook County is to Illinois.....same way with the big liberal metro areas on the left coast.
If it wasn't for the NRA, the GOA, the SAF and the other RTKBA groups, you all would have been stripped of your right to own guns years ago. As in any war, you must know where to fight, and not continue to throw assets at lost causes.....I always have to wonder when I hear folks bashing the NRA and other's, just how involved they are in the fight.
Back biting and fighting among ourselves will only serve the anti's.....you are either part of the solution, or part of the problem.
NRA Giving up on New York? Nope.
The New York State Rifle and Pistol Association posted on their website:
Sure - it's been expected in the background, but nobody I know of expected a mad-man to kill a classroom full of little kids and a few adults.
Be that as it may, everyone knows now so the question is, how do we respond to the threat? Solid suggestions are welcome.
+1 on that!
I consider New York to be occupied enemy territory and I think malevolent gun control will probably advance to the Mason Dixon line and be stopped hard at the Virginia state line. Nothing national will pass since the anti-gunners still have 1994 in their minds and remember that vote cost 54 House members and 8 Senators their careers in Congress.
Has the NRA announce that they will fight this in courts?
The New York State Rifle and Pistol Association posted on their website:
Yes. Through the NYSRPA.
don't worry, they won't possibly make it all the way to georgia. My impression from most of my northern friends is that they are having second thoughts about keeping the south post civil war, and it seems the feeling is mutual. it's kind of a shame people can't figure out how to play nice.
While I agree with the sentiments on much of what you said in your post, this topic is a pet peeve of mine.
Many people either do not understand the Electoral College, or have not bothered to do any reading on not only how it works, but the historical why's in the way it is written.
In short, the president is not a local or state representative. He runs for office on a nation wide scale, which necessarily encompasses many times the number of people, cultures, economic backgrounds, ethnicities, and so forth that local or state levels have. Among other things, the Electoral College balances the state concerns with the population concerns. Much like we do with the House of Representatives (by population) and the Senate (by state) in Congress.
There are other things that the Electoral College does as well.
While I am open to the idea of some changes, "reform" (which implies an major overhaul or replacement) is not only unnecessary...it is fraught with its own dangers because, as we're seeing now, people tend to think with their emotions and not their heads.
Periodically you hear people crying out for electing the president by popular vote instead of by the Electoral College. Doing so would mean the large population centers would be the sole factor in deciding who the next president will be. Rural populations and small states will no longer be represented because they would far below the point of diminishing returns with respect to campaign efforts.
By the same token, if the election were based only by states, with each state having equal representation, then states with high populations would be disporportionately out voted on a consistent basis and the concerns of much larger numbers of people would not have to be addressed or catered to by candidates.
And as another side note:
You said that the select areas do not represent the majority of Americans.
This actually may NOT be true. With a total population of just over 310 million people, only about 80 million or so are gun owners. That leaves 230 million Americans who are NOT gun owners. Given that these 230 million people do not own guns, it is fair to say that the majority of them, for whatever reason, do not feel the need for them. And it would also be fair to say that a pretty significant number of those 230 million probably don't see the need that ANYBODY should have (fill in the blank) guns. It would only take about 1/3 of those people being pro-gun control to put them on an equal basis with the 80 million gun owners.
Toss in the fact that out of 80 million gun owners, there is a percentage of them who are ambivalent or believe in stronger gun laws. This means that not all of those 80 million are as pro-gun as, say, the people typically representated here on THR.
Which means that there very likely IS a majority of Americans out there who are represented by these people. Ignoring that possibility means that people will ignore strategies they should be considering in order to counter that.
The question, therefore, is whether or not the rest of us can hold sway as a minority group and retain our rights for EVERYBODY as we see them under the 2nd Amendment.
Sorry if I went too far off topic here.
Well said, except that when you quote the 230 million who are not gun owners, you are missing that a good number of these people are underage or otherwise prohibited from owning guns due to felony charges, etc. maybe a more interesting number is how many American households have guns? I think that is closer to 3/4.
Separate names with a comma.