A-Tech 8 Posted February 28, 2013 Man would it be great if not only they lifted the currently passed laws, but they were forced to keep them off the books, which means no AWB at all. Is this case an all or nothing? No, its more like go back to the drawing board and try again. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mcbethr 42 Posted March 1, 2013 No, its more like go back to the drawing board and try again. That I could see - a deal where they grudgingly admit that "assault weapons" are in common use. So the state sort of turns them into a sort of New York State Class III weapon where the buyers need a tax stamp and so on for X features. Maybe a tax for each "evil" feature. Want a folding stock? Fine. $100 stamp. Want a bayonet lug? Fine. $100 stamp. Want a 30 round magazine? Fine. $100 stamp per magazine. That would have the effect of allowing these weapons, but reducing their availability. And making "post-ban" weapons more popular since you don't have to pay for the stamp. A sort of AWB without being an AWB. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
n4p226r 105 Posted March 1, 2013 My opinion. This doesn't mean crap for NJ. The NY state Supreme Court will till if its constitutionally protected against NY constitution not the US constitution. We all know how well Nj's constitution protects us. Any lawyers care to clarify? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BCeagle 12 Posted March 1, 2013 That I could see - a deal where they grudgingly admit that "assault weapons" are in common use. So the state sort of turns them into a sort of New York State Class III weapon where the buyers need a tax stamp and so on for X features. Maybe a tax for each "evil" feature. Want a folding stock? Fine. $100 stamp. Want a bayonet lug? Fine. $100 stamp. Want a 30 round magazine? Fine. $100 stamp per magazine. That would have the effect of allowing these weapons, but reducing their availability. And making "post-ban" weapons more popular since you don't have to pay for the stamp. A sort of AWB without being an AWB. The more these tax/insurance plans come up, the more I see it at as denying poor people their rights. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PeteF 1,044 Posted March 1, 2013 The more these tax/insurance plans come up, the more I see it at as denying poor people their rights. Wasn't the "Poll Tax" declared unconstituitional? Isn't being forced to pay money (permit fees, background checks etc) to exercise a constitutional right, the exact same thing? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mcbethr 42 Posted March 1, 2013 Isn't being forced to pay money (permit fees, background checks etc) to exercise a constitutional right, the exact same thing? No. Because if it saves the life of just one child... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mcbethr 42 Posted March 1, 2013 The more these tax/insurance plans come up, the more I see it at as denying poor people their rights. Oh it does. I'm not saying that I agree with it, but it's an option that they could use to "discourage" weapons with evil features without actually banning them. I think that we have a bit of a skewed idea toward shooting because pretty much everybody on this board is a frequent shooter. "The poor" in NJ are different than "the poor" in other states. I'd venture to say that if someone "poor" in NJ wants a gun, they are buying one revolver and a box of shells to keep at their Bodega or one Maverick 88 shotgun to keep in their closet and that's it. "The poor" don't buy AR-15's - at least not in NJ. Calling a tax on "evil features" as tax on the poor is almost like saying that a luxury tax on yachts is prejudicial to the poor since it makes yachts less affordable. If a poor person suddenly had $1500 to spend I doubt they would buy an AR-15. They would put it toward bills or clothes for their kids or maybe a well-deserved vacation. IMHO there are 2 types people in NJ who buy AR-type rifles. #1. The upper middle class enthusiast. #2. Veterans who want something that is familiar to them. Is a $300 total tax on evil features going to hurt me? No. If I can afford $1,200 for an AR-15, I can afford $1,500 The problem comes when we apply flat taxes or insurance or special requirements against initial purchase - sort of like the way NYC requires fees and permits that are often in excess of the cost of the gun. *That* is denying poor people their rights without a doubt. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SJG 253 Posted March 1, 2013 A ray of hope, but I would not get too excited. The New York Supreme Court is not the highest Court in the State of NY. It is just a trial level court. The highest court in NY is the NY Court of Appeals. This has a long way to go. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wooly bugger 1 Posted March 1, 2013 No. Because if it saves the life of just one child... See my avatar. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mcbethr 42 Posted March 1, 2013 See my avatar. Ah... I see what you did there... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quikz 34 Posted March 3, 2013 They need to issue an arrest warrant for that ASS Cuomo. But of course they dont have any balls in NY, or in NJ. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
reloaderguy 30 Posted March 3, 2013 No, its more like go back to the drawing board and try again. No it's not going back to the drawing board again because NY Constitution has a "Militia" clause and they are protected having these things. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites