lexcruiser

New York Supreme Court may issue injunction on recent "SAFE" act..

42 posts in this topic

This just in at TTAG command central: the New York Supreme Court has stated that an injunction against the new SAFE Act (AKA massive, over-reaching gun ban) will be put in place on April 29th unless the state can prove that the law is constitutional. This puts the burden of proof on the state of New York to show the law is legal under the newly re-affirmed provisions of the Second Amendment, which is impossible. ...

 

Nice. I'd love to see Cuomo get the smackdown on this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes definitely a "NEED" to allow the idiots in Hollywood showing more people being killed by guns - that is a great idea. I think it is impossible to watch three hours of prime time TV on any given station without seeing someone shot by a gun -- maybe that is why so many people hate guns so much. We would all be better off if they passed lots of laws to reduce gun violence on TV, movies, and video games. IF they did such common sense things then maybe they would not find the need to restrict our legal rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bear in mind that the U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled that firearms “in common usage” cannot be restricted. And since the NY SAFE Act’s entire purpose is to restrict ownership of the single most popular firearm in the United States, there’s no way they can make a case that their law complies with the Second Amendment. If this injunction is upheld, then it opens the door for New Yorkers to challenge the standing “assault weapons” ban and other gun laws as well.

::sniff sniff:: You smell that? It smells like a lawsuit against NJ for the AWB. Are you paying attention, ANJRPC?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are using the 'dangerous and unusual' clause to justify the ban in spite of heller. The truth is that all guns are dangerous. So are power tools. So all thy have to argue is that the ar15 or semi auto mag fed rifles are 'unusual'. If they can do that, they can eventually argue any firearm type to be unusual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

::sniff sniff:: You smell that? It smells like a lawsuit against NJ for the AWB. Are you paying attention, ANJRPC?

 

I said something similar once before about our current awb. And the other states that have its own awb. It should be overturned at the higher levels. If my bro in PA can have this and that and I can't.. why not.. land of equal rights and we are one nation under god ! Apparently we are NOT one nation !

 

Molon Labe

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are using the 'dangerous and unusual' clause to justify the ban in spite of heller. The truth is that all guns are dangerous. So are power tools. So all thy have to argue is that the ar15 or semi auto mag fed rifles are 'unusual'. If they can do that, they can eventually argue any firearm type to be unusual.

 

Can't see how an AR-15 or any semi-auto mag-fed rifle can be considered "unusual". They're some of the most common guns out there. And semi-auto is semi-auto. The addition of pistol grips, flash suppressors, etc. doesn't change the operation of the gun. They're gonna have a hard time defending this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

YOU can't see. I agree with you. They will argue rate of fire coupled with the breakup of fast/light intermediate cartridge designed for "mass killing" as being unusual.

 

The concern is that of they are successful and ban them. It is a line to follow that brings them to ban all semi autos, pumps, levers, handguns...and turns is into England.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are using the 'dangerous and unusual' clause to justify the ban in spite of heller. The truth is that all guns are dangerous. So are power tools. So all thy have to argue is that the ar15 or semi auto mag fed rifles are 'unusual'. If they can do that, they can eventually argue any firearm type to be unusual.

 

I suppose you can argue anything, but if it is in common use, which it an AR15 is, I would think it tough to make the argument it is unusual. Might have greater success with that argument for 50 BMG rifles though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Retired" police.

 

NY is a major film center, it rivals hollywood and employes 1,000's of people. I can see the exemption being needed for this.

NY is a major hunting and gun ownership center, it rivals Pennsylvania with 1,000,000's of gun owners. I can see them needing an exemption, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes definitely a "NEED" to allow the idiots in Hollywood showing more people being killed by guns - that is a great idea. I think it is impossible to watch three hours of prime time TV on any given station without seeing someone shot by a gun -- maybe that is why so many people hate guns so much. We would all be better off if they passed lots of laws to reduce gun violence on TV, movies, and video games. IF they did such common sense things then maybe they would not find the need to restrict our legal rights.

That would never work. As soon as the people who want "more gun control" are finished selling us down the river and settle down for a nice movie, they'll be outraged at how tame and untitillating it is. There's a phenomenon in psychiatry called "projection," It's a way of explaining behavior that states that people tend to project their own fears and impulses onto others. So, inherently violent people are the ones most likely to be terrified by the thought of others having guns....because they assume we must internally harbor the same violent fantasies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes definitely a "NEED" to allow the idiots in Hollywood showing more people being killed by guns - that is a great idea. I think it is impossible to watch three hours of prime time TV on any given station without seeing someone shot by a gun -- maybe that is why so many people hate guns so much. We would all be better off if they passed lots of laws to reduce gun violence on TV, movies, and video games. IF they did such common sense things then maybe they would not find the need to restrict our legal rights.

 

Sorry, but freedom of expression also happens to be one of our rights. I would never agree to surrender one essential right to retain another. Lose one, lose them all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

That would never work. As soon as the people who want "more gun control" are finished selling us down the river and settle down for a nice movie, they'll be outraged at how tame and untitillating it is. There's a phenomenon in psychiatry called "projection," It's a way of explaining behavior that states that people tend to project their own fears and impulses onto others. So, inherently violent people are the ones most likely to be terrified by the thought of others having guns....because they assume we must internally harbor the same violent fantasies.

it's like finding out the biggest homophobe In high school is now a 30 year old transvestite. Ironic the way that works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, but freedom of expression also happens to be one of our rights. I would never agree to surrender one essential right to retain another. Lose one, lose them all.

 

Sure it is a right, but they can tax it - just like they do with guns. Have a tax for each round that is fired in a movie or tv show or game to help fund mental health issues :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it's like finding out the biggest homophobe In high school is now a 30 year old transvestite. Ironic the way that works.

Funny, there was an ultraconservative, homophobic guy in college. Everyone kept telling him to just accept the fact that he's gay. At our 15th year reunion, it was quite clear he had.

 

One of the areas I differ from many of the conservatives is on gay rights and marriage. I'm strongly pro both. So I'm glad that the environment is getting to the point where there's less pressure for people to suppress their natural preferences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Sure it is a right, but they can tax it - just like they do with guns. Have a tax for each round that is fired in a movie or tv show or game to help fund mental health issues :)

 

Holy shit, you mean tax the guns that never seam to run out of ammo??? After all, we all know a basic magazine for these movie guns hold approx 100 rounds.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now