reloaderguy

Smells of cover up to me! NEWTOWN — New information has now been brought forth by Connecticut State Attorney Stephen Sedensky, suggesting that records pertaining to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting have been sealed to possibly hide the identity of witnesses from multiple shooter suspects and that they should not be unsealed anytime soon. Officials fear the safety of witnesses. Now we are getting somewhere, after nearly two months this new information is startling. http://theintelhub.com/2013/02/07/sandy-hook-law-enforcement-now-admit-possibility-of-multiple-shooters/

On the contrary. This is an excellent argument bringing up the militia issue. Heller and McDonald have nothing to do with this. SCOTUS has already ruled that if you are in a militia in which the NY state constitution says you are then protected and can have military style weapons and large capacity mags. You guys have to stop throwing this "keep and bear arms should not be infringed" at every argument. This peticular issue regarding being part of a militia is the arguing point!

"On February 19, we will Petition the Court by filing a lawsuit with the NY Supreme Court in Albany against the Governor for abusing his power under Article III of the New York State Constitution. On that day, we will also Serve a Petition for Redress on our government to uphold Article XII which says every citizen in New York is a member of the militia. The two actions go hand-in-hand. What happens here in New York is being watched by the rest of the Nation." http://www.ammoland.com/2013/02/we-the-people-of-new-york-to-take-on-gov-cuomo-ny-safe-act/#axzz2KBEYmsy1 Being that SCOTUS has already ruled that if you are part of a militia you are protected from having any weapons taken away this case should prove interesting!

Love to help out but we decided to go to PA to a gun show that day!

New York state will be the state to draw first blood and I hope it happends!

I bring home the paycheck so I make the decisions!

SCOTUS already ruled that states have a right to impose reasonable restrictions. Do I like it? No! I've said it once and I'll say it again. The ONLY way around this crap is if everyone in this and every other state starts a militia in which case SCOTUS has already ruled that these laws with weapons and mag capacity and all this other crap is unconstitutional if people are part of a militia in which case are are protected!

Don't know if this is a dupe but 3rd circuit rules in NJ one gun a month case! http://appellatelaw-nj.com/gun-groups-pre-emption-and-due-process-challenges-to-one-gun-law-are-shot-down/

Try 12 months from now!

People aren't happy!

Interesting! http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/01/obama-administration-repositioning-homeland-security-ammunition-containers/

And the lawsuits start against New York. http://www.nysrpa.org/files/SAFENoticeOfClaim.pdf

What makes you think anyone is going to comply if it's 5 rounds or 10 rounds!

This whole issue will be fought in the courts and not in emails to Menendez and Lautenmummy. They don't care what you think!

Click on the youtube on the bottom of the screen.

He absolutely KILLED it, especially in the beginning when he was taking his time.

Perhaps if you read and understood the article you could share with us. I guess you missed this! "The only solution is for states to pass a bill to reconstitute the constitutional militia and the people of each state demand their governor sign it into law. THAT will stop the tyrants in Washington, DC."

Very good article. http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd569.htm

This is what the court ruled in 1939. Read the last line!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). This is the only case in which the Supreme Court has had the opportunity to apply the Second Amendment to a federal firearms statute. The Court, however, carefully avoided making an unconditional decision regarding the statute's constitutionality; it instead devised a test by which to measure the constitutionality of statutes relating to firearms and remanded the case to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing (the trial court had held that Section 11 of the National Firearms Act was unconstitutional). The Court remanded to the case because it had concluded that: In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Thus, for the keeping and bearing of a firearm to be constitutionally protected, the firearm should be a militia-type arm.

Assault Weapon issue everyone needs to be reminded of: United States v. Miller 1939. Miller possessed a sawed-off shotgun banned under the National Firearms Act. He argued that he had a right to bear the weapon under the Second Amendment, but the Supreme Court ruled against him. Why? At the time, sawed-off shotguns were not being used in a military application, and the Supremes ruled that since it didn't, it was not protected. Even though Miller lost that argument, the Miller case set the precedent that protected firearms have a military, and thus a legitimate and protected Militia use. The military now uses shotguns regularly, but not very short, sawed-off shotguns, but an AR-15/AK-47 type weapon is currently in use by the military, therefore it is a protected weapon for the Unorganized Militia, which includes just about every American citizen now that both age and sex discrimination are illegal. (The original Militia included men of age 17-45) Therefore any firearm that is applicable to military use is clearly protected under Article II, and that includes all those nasty-looking semi-automatic black rifles, including full 30 round magazines.

That's one way to get this clown removed from office.

If you can't ban the gun you make it impossible to get a mag. That is what they are trying to do!

Ya but if you sell it to someone else there is no record so you can just say you sold it and don't remember to who!

deleted

http://polhudson.lohudblogs.com/2013/01/21/sheriffs-department-rips-new-gun-law-in-ny/ Sheriff’s Department Rips New Gun Law In NY Posted by: Joseph Spector - Posted in Uncategorized on Jan 21, 2013 The Steuben County Sheriff’s Department is criticizing New York’s new gun-control law, with the police union questioning how it would enforce the new provisions. “At this time, it is not the intention of any member of our association to deprive any law abiding citizen their right to possess any legally owned firearm that has not committed another crime as defined by the current laws of the state of New York,” the Deputies Association of the County of Steuben said on the department’s Facebook page today. The news release from the union followed one from county’s sheriff, Sheriff David Cole, who also knocked the law. “Violence usually occurs with illegally possessed firearms and long guns, not legally registered weapons in the hands of law abiding citizens,” Cole wrote Friday. “These laws will now make it so thousands and thousands of law abiding citizens, who go to work, pay their taxes, and concerned about their children’s future, will now be considered criminals if they choose to stand up for the Second Amendment Rights guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution.” Updated: The union’s leader, Senior Inv. Eric Tyner, said the union would enforce the law, but also recognizes that people may not understand it. “Our office has been flooded with calls: ‘Are you guys coming and taking our guns?’” Tyner said. The statements come as local law enforcement, county clerks and State Police will have to enforce the law signed last Tuesday. The law enacts a tougher assault-weapons ban and limits bullets in magazines from 10 to seven. It increases gun-registration requirements, including re-registrating guns every five years. Peter Kehoe, the head of the state Sheriffs’ Association, said sheriffs have expressed concern about the hastily passed law—which lawmakers adopted just hours after it was printed late Monday and Tuesday. Kehoe said sheriffs are expecting to abide by the law, but they have their issues with it. “While many of the provisions of this bill have surface appeal, it is far from certain that many of them will have any significant effect in reducing gun violence, which is the presumed goal of all of us,” the association said in a statement.”Unfortunately the process used in adoption of this act did not permit the mature development of the arguments on either side of the debate, and thus many of the stakeholders in this important issue are left feeling oppressed by their government.” Gov. Andrew Cuomo has defended the law, saying the quick passage was needed to avoid a run on guns before it passed. “What I’m saying is reasonable regulation,” Cuomo said Thursday on 1300-AM (WGDJ) in Albany. “I understand the benefit of a high-capacity magazine in a situation like self-protection. On the other hand, I understand the danger of a high-capacity magazine when it falls into the wrong hands. When you weigh the danger, I say reasonable regulation. It’s not worth having the assault weapons around, because they can do more harm than good.”