NY bill

Have a look at the gang drug shootings every day in buffalo and ask how well the restrictions on gun ownership are working. It’s amazing that it seems the more restricted the laws are the more drug and gang shootings and robberies occur. Good people can’t be armed because it’s expensive and will generally be denied. Criminals can be armed anywhere and know most people can’t defend themselves
 
JERRYS. said:
difference between may issue and shall issue.... when a right is treated as a privilege.
Click to expand...
Either method of issue involves a permit/license. Why is a permit or license, even a "shall issue" one, required at all for the exercise of a right that is supposedly guaranteed by the Constitution?
 
Armed Chicagoan said:
I want to see the search history of politicians.
Click to expand...
Now that you bring it up, I think their internet search habits would be far more useful in determining their fitness to rule legislate than their income tax returns.
 
I've heard of cases where an applicant was denied due to "too many" speeding tickets, or even parking tickets. The rest of your life may be pure as the driven snow, but a judge can look at a "large" number of traffic tickets (as one example), and decide this pattern of behavior indicates you are an irresponsible scofflaw, and therefore NOT someone who should have a legally licensed pistol!
Click to expand...

I have friends who maintain homes in three countries, one of which is England and the same thing worries them. Get caught speeding and there is a good chance you could lose your permit for owning guns. Some governments really need to be manhandled by their constituents.
 
"Why is a permit or license, even a "shall issue" one, required at all for the exercise of a right that is supposedly guaranteed by the Constitution? "

That is a million dollar question!
 
Because the Constitution and BOR, if violated do not drop the Ten Plagues of Egypt on the Country. Rhetorical questions as we have discussed that BOR statements are not absolute quite a few times.
 
Here's your million dollar answer, for free...

because the Constitution doesn't say "ALL arms, everywhere, all the time, and we rilly, rilly , rilly mean it!!"
:rolleyes:

And the legal mindset that as long as you can do some part of it, somewhere, sometime, permit or not, then your rights are not being "infringed".

Most of us disagree with that, but various courts and states disagree with us.
No rights are unlimited. ALL have restrictions, and "compromises". Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose, etc.

Remember every law ever made was done with the "best of intentions". At least in the opinion of the people who made it law.

Real world results often vary...
 
One of our esteemed senators wanted every bullet etched with a serial number so it could be traced. That was in the late 90’s he made that comment. I could tell right away he must have been an avid hunter and range shooter well versed in the art of firearms. Sadly these guys who are clueless keep making the laws with no understanding or consultation with people who do know . Do they go to a doctor for advice when sick or just make up a law restricting illness
 
Glenn E. Meyer said:
Because the Constitution and BOR, if violated do not drop the Ten Plagues of Egypt on the Country. Rhetorical questions as we have discussed that BOR statements are not absolute quite a few times.
Click to expand...
Yes, and the answer always seems to be that the Supreme Court has "historically" ruled that other rights enshrined in the BOR are subject to regulation, so therefore the 2nd Amendment must also be subject to regulation. I get it.

And my response to that remains the same: By definition, regulation = infringement, and the 2nd Amendment says that the RKBA shall not be infringed. IMHO, anyone with a modicum of intellectual honesty would recognize that the 2nd Amendment itself says that it is not subject to regulation. In the 2nd Amendment, that is an absolute statement, not a qualified statement. It doesn't say, "... shall not be unreasonably infringed."

I also recognize that my opinion is worth less than the collective opinions of a majority of the justices on the Supreme Court. That doesn't mean that I can't hold the opinion that the SCOTUS is wrong. After all, Hillary said they're wrong; my right to believe that is fully equal to hers, even if we don't agree on the direction in which they're wrong.
 
My take from an experience I once had is that some politicians don't care what "we the people" think.

I once wrote a letter (this was before Al Gore invented the internet) to a career politician (a Democrat) stating that the bill in question is not inline with 2A. there were other opinions stated, but this was the main context of my letter.

In short, his answer simply stated "sometimes the people don't know what is best for them".

I wasted no more stamps or envelopes on the A-hole. He was going to do what HE wanted anyways regardless of the people.
 
Glenn E. Meyer said:
Because the Constitution and BOR, if violated do not drop the Ten Plagues of Egypt on the Country. Rhetorical questions as we have discussed that BOR statements are not absolute quite a few times.
Click to expand...
I get that nothing is absolute and our rights can be regulated, but the BoRs tells me my personal effects are protected from "unreasonable searches", and worth noting the presumption of innocence is widely accepted practice in case law.... I would think that requiring to give up my 4th Amendment right without probable cause, in order to exercise my 2nd Amendment right, unreasonable.
 
Good luck looking for mine. First I have none; I view some forums like this one, a camper forum, a few truck forums and most of all internet usage is with a VPN and a TOR browser.
Also, I don't know my neighbors, they don't know me (closest one is about a half mile away) and I'll stop there.
But people have to start realizing that what you put on the internet stays just like this post.:D
But I sure don't like anywhere near the state of NY, although I did spend about seven months in Watkins Glen many years ago, on a paid rehabilitation.
 
Dufus said:
My take from an experience I once had is that some politicians don't care what "we the people" think.

I once wrote a letter (this was before Al Gore invented the internet) to a career politician (a Democrat) stating that the bill in question is not inline with 2A. there were other opinions stated, but this was the main context of my letter.

In short, his answer simply stated "sometimes the people don't know what is best for them".

I wasted no more stamps or envelopes on the A-hole. He was going to do what HE wanted anyways regardless of the people.
Click to expand...

"Tyranny of the majority"...
Noun. (plural tyrannies of the majority or tyrannies of majorities) (politics) A situation in which a government or other authority democratically supported by a majority of its subjects makes policies or takes actions benefiting that majority, without regard for the rights or welfare of the rest of its subjects.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top