Carry laws

[Lonestar_logic]

I am torn on this one. The right to own is not threatened by laws controlling who can carry a loaded weapon outside the home. The laws I do oppose are those that criminalize the mere possession of an unloaded firearm outside the home.

Supreme Court passes on gun rights case - First Read

I'm not sure how far the law went. I recall in California the weapon had to be unloaded, in a locked compartment and the ammo stored seperately while being transported. Obviously, you can't outlaw unloaded guns outside the home since you have to at least get them from the gun store to the home.

I'm torn as well. I consider it the right of any state to make these decisions for themselves, so long as it is not an outright ban. But I don't see the benefit of the law. Of course, I don't live in New York so it really doesn't impact me.

This is how we are to possess/transport firearms in Illinois. We are the only state without a concealed carry law. (But we're "working" on it).

I am torn on this one. The right to own is not threatened by laws controlling who can carry a loaded weapon outside the home. The laws I do oppose are those that criminalize the mere possession of an unloaded firearm outside the home.

Supreme Court passes on gun rights case - First Read

What good would an unloaded gun be?

Why even bother to carry one?

Transporting to/from the range or gunsmith or gun show, or wherever.

Funny story- some years ago my brother was returning home from the gun range. He had about a half dozen firearms (and ammo) properly stored in his vehicle. Got pulled over for speeding. "Do you have any firearms in your vehicle?"
"Yes I do". Soon there were a half-dozen state police cars surrounding his vehicle. After a brief chat and cursory look-see, he was sent on his merry way.

That's sad you have to unload your weapon for transport.

 

[martybegan]

The Government has a compelling reason to limit places that loaded weapons can be carried. Without a permit.

They may have a reason, but do they really have the right to infringe on our rights?

They do if they can show a compelling reason to curtail rights. They already do so in Government buildings and elsewhere. I agree an attempt to prevent carry everywhere would be unconstitutional. But limited areas are legal and Constitutional.

The limited areas should also be controlled areas, where the government takes on the responsibility to protect you in case an incident happens, not just the responsibility to figure out who ventilated your corpse after the fact.

Concealed carry can be limited in buildings, airports, places like the NYC subway, any place there is controlled entry.

Just saying "No one in NYC can concealed carry anywhere except if the NYPD likes them (which is the current situation)" reeks of cronyism and government pandering.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Someone can disagree with your opinion without being brainwashed. I don't see guns as a problem, but I also don't think any of the restrictions being proposed constitute some grave danger to our freedoms. I am seeing a lot of over reaction on both sides of the debate. So I don't vote based upon the candidates position on gun control, though I do vote based upon the candidates position on government interference in our lives.

Those that disagree with the second amendment have been brainwashed. That is my opinion and I am entitled to it. You are welcome to disagree.

What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. You have the right to be wrong. I could as easily say that you have been brainwashed because you think the 2nd amendment is unlimited, when it clearly is not.

What "shall not be infringed" means is that you have the right to keep and bear arms. It does not mean you have the right to any "arms" that strikes your fancy. You don't have the right to keep and bear a nuclear weapon, which falls under the definition of "arms". You don't have the right to keep a 500 pound bomb in your garage, 50 feet from where my children sleep. Your rights do not exist in a vacuum, they must co-exist with the rest of society.

Part III: What “arms” meant, circa 1787

First, a few modern definitions of “arms” present themselves. Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary defines the noun arm as “a means (as a weapon) of offense or defense; especially: firearm.”18 Black’s Law Dictionary defines the word arms as “anything that a man wears for his defense, or takes in his hands as a weapon.”19

Federal law fails to define “arms” explicitly, but does identify some sub-groups of arms. For example, the National Firearms Act20 (“NFA”) does not define arms in general terms, but does exhaustively list what items count as “firearms” under Federal law, including shotguns21, rifles22, machine guns23, silencers24, and the catch-all terms “any other weapon”25 or “destructive devices.”26 Almost all the types of weapons listed in the NFA are easily man-portable, except for some rockets, missiles, bombs and mines that would presumably qualify as “destructive devices” but which weigh too much to be easily carried by one person.

The Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act27 (“OCCSSA”) defines “firearm” as any weapon which is designed as or may be readily convertible to expel a projectile.28 The definition also includes the frame or receiver of such a weapon29, any firearm muffler or firearm silencer30, or any “destructive device.”31 “Destructive devices” include bombs, missiles, rockets, grenades, mines and similar devices, whether they have explosive, incendiary, or poison-gas warheads.

As with the 1st Amendment there are common sense limits, we restrain libel, slander pornography, fighting words and speech that incites panic. So there are common sense limits on what we define as "arms", i.e. rockets, missiles, bombs et.al.. I have no problem with that. But when they try to limit the number of bullets and ban semi-auto rifles, that's going too far.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Funny story- some years ago my brother was returning home from the gun range. He had about a half dozen firearms (and ammo) properly stored in his vehicle. Got pulled over for speeding. "Do you have any firearms in your vehicle?"

That's what your 5th Amendment Rights are for.

If the dickhead Pig pulls you over for speeding then he should just write a ticket and go away. Where you're going, where you've been and what you have are none of his f*ckin' business.

If he actually has Probable Cause to search your car, then it will stand up in court when you sue his ass. If not then he's in serious trouble.

 

[PratchettFan]

Those that disagree with the second amendment have been brainwashed. That is my opinion and I am entitled to it. You are welcome to disagree.

What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. You have the right to be wrong. I could as easily say that you have been brainwashed because you think the 2nd amendment is unlimited, when it clearly is not.

What "shall not be infringed" means is that you have the right to keep and bear arms. It does not mean you have the right to any "arms" that strikes your fancy. You don't have the right to keep and bear a nuclear weapon, which falls under the definition of "arms". You don't have the right to keep a 500 pound bomb in your garage, 50 feet from where my children sleep. Your rights do not exist in a vacuum, they must co-exist with the rest of society.

Part III: What “arms” meant, circa 1787

First, a few modern definitions of “arms” present themselves. Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary defines the noun arm as “a means (as a weapon) of offense or defense; especially: firearm.”18 Black’s Law Dictionary defines the word arms as “anything that a man wears for his defense, or takes in his hands as a weapon.”19

Federal law fails to define “arms” explicitly, but does identify some sub-groups of arms. For example, the National Firearms Act20 (“NFA”) does not define arms in general terms, but does exhaustively list what items count as “firearms” under Federal law, including shotguns21, rifles22, machine guns23, silencers24, and the catch-all terms “any other weapon”25 or “destructive devices.”26 Almost all the types of weapons listed in the NFA are easily man-portable, except for some rockets, missiles, bombs and mines that would presumably qualify as “destructive devices” but which weigh too much to be easily carried by one person.

The Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act27 (“OCCSSA”) defines “firearm” as any weapon which is designed as or may be readily convertible to expel a projectile.28 The definition also includes the frame or receiver of such a weapon29, any firearm muffler or firearm silencer30, or any “destructive device.”31 “Destructive devices” include bombs, missiles, rockets, grenades, mines and similar devices, whether they have explosive, incendiary, or poison-gas warheads.

As with the 1st Amendment there are common sense limits, we restrain libel, slander pornography, fighting words and speech that incites panic. So there are common sense limits on what we define as "arms", i.e. rockets, missiles, bombs et.al.. I have no problem with that. But when they try to limit the number of bullets and ban semi-auto rifles, that's going too far.

Which is simply how you justify an infringement of the right to keep and bear arms, and you are right. A rational limitation is necessary. A prisoner in a max security prison falls under the category of "the people", but that does not mean he has the right to a firearm in his cell. That is an infringement, but a rational infringement.

I think a limitation on rounds and a ban on certain rifles is constitutional. I also think it is pointless and will not make any difference. I oppose it because it will not work and really is nothing more than a political ploy to make it seem politicians are doing something. I think NY is wrong in how they handle carrying a weapon. I think Illinois is wrong. But what they are doing is constitutional. The citizens of those states have the right to deal with as they desire, not as I desire.

 

[Mr. H.]

Funny story- some years ago my brother was returning home from the gun range. He had about a half dozen firearms (and ammo) properly stored in his vehicle. Got pulled over for speeding. "Do you have any firearms in your vehicle?"

That's what your 5th Amendment Rights are for.

If the dickhead Pig pulls you over for speeding then he should just write a ticket and go away. Where you're going, where you've been and what you have are none of his f*ckin' business.

If he actually has Probable Cause to search your car, then it will stand up in court when you sue his ass. If not then he's in serious trouble.

"Dickhead pig" is a bit radical, but oh well. A little more detail that I could have included: my brother and the State cop knew each other (from way back). In the course of conversation my brother volunteered where he had been, which led to the firearms question. Consent was given to search the vehicle. He had absolutely nothing to hide and he knew he was within the law. It was all amicable.

Amicable, as opposed to adversarial.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. You have the right to be wrong. I could as easily say that you have been brainwashed because you think the 2nd amendment is unlimited, when it clearly is not.

What "shall not be infringed" means is that you have the right to keep and bear arms. It does not mean you have the right to any "arms" that strikes your fancy. You don't have the right to keep and bear a nuclear weapon, which falls under the definition of "arms". You don't have the right to keep a 500 pound bomb in your garage, 50 feet from where my children sleep. Your rights do not exist in a vacuum, they must co-exist with the rest of society.

Part III: What “arms” meant, circa 1787

First, a few modern definitions of “arms” present themselves. Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary defines the noun arm as “a means (as a weapon) of offense or defense; especially: firearm.”18 Black’s Law Dictionary defines the word arms as “anything that a man wears for his defense, or takes in his hands as a weapon.”19

Federal law fails to define “arms” explicitly, but does identify some sub-groups of arms. For example, the National Firearms Act20 (“NFA”) does not define arms in general terms, but does exhaustively list what items count as “firearms” under Federal law, including shotguns21, rifles22, machine guns23, silencers24, and the catch-all terms “any other weapon”25 or “destructive devices.”26 Almost all the types of weapons listed in the NFA are easily man-portable, except for some rockets, missiles, bombs and mines that would presumably qualify as “destructive devices” but which weigh too much to be easily carried by one person.

The Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act27 (“OCCSSA”) defines “firearm” as any weapon which is designed as or may be readily convertible to expel a projectile.28 The definition also includes the frame or receiver of such a weapon29, any firearm muffler or firearm silencer30, or any “destructive device.”31 “Destructive devices” include bombs, missiles, rockets, grenades, mines and similar devices, whether they have explosive, incendiary, or poison-gas warheads.

As with the 1st Amendment there are common sense limits, we restrain libel, slander pornography, fighting words and speech that incites panic. So there are common sense limits on what we define as "arms", i.e. rockets, missiles, bombs et.al.. I have no problem with that. But when they try to limit the number of bullets and ban semi-auto rifles, that's going too far.

Which is simply how you justify an infringement of the right to keep and bear arms, and you are right. A rational limitation is necessary. A prisoner in a max security prison falls under the category of "the people", but that does not mean he has the right to a firearm in his cell. That is an infringement, but a rational infringement.

I think a limitation on rounds and a ban on certain rifles is constitutional. I also think it is pointless and will not make any difference. I oppose it because it will not work and really is nothing more than a political ploy to make it seem politicians are doing something. I think NY is wrong in how they handle carrying a weapon. I think Illinois is wrong. But what they are doing is constitutional. The citizens of those states have the right to deal with as they desire, not as I desire.

That's where you and I disagree.

I don't think the citizens of New York or Illinois, especially Chicago had a vote in the matter.

When Cuomo signed into law new gun control measures did the citizens have a say in the matter? Was what he did constitutional? An end-run around the legislative and democratic process.

When you start giving up your rights, don't expect to get them back anytime soon.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Funny story- some years ago my brother was returning home from the gun range. He had about a half dozen firearms (and ammo) properly stored in his vehicle. Got pulled over for speeding. "Do you have any firearms in your vehicle?"

That's what your 5th Amendment Rights are for.

If the dickhead Pig pulls you over for speeding then he should just write a ticket and go away. Where you're going, where you've been and what you have are none of his f*ckin' business.

If he actually has Probable Cause to search your car, then it will stand up in court when you sue his ass. If not then he's in serious trouble.

"Dickhead pig" is a bit radical, but oh well. A little more detail that I could have included: my brother and the State cop knew each other (from way back). In the course of conversation my brother volunteered where he had been, which led to the firearms question. Consent was given to search the vehicle. He had absolutely nothing to hide and he knew he was within the law. It was all amicable.

Amicable, as opposed to adversarial.

The 4th and 5th Amendments apply whether you know the Pig personally or not.

Piggie aint yer friend. None of them are. Their job is to escalate the stop into a Drug Bust or DUI stop which generates revenue for the Town, City or State the Pig works for.

During a Traffic Stop, the Constitution is your ONLY friend.

NEVER Voluntarily Consent to search of your car or yourself. If Piggie doesn't have Reasonable Suspicion or Probable Cause then he needs to go back to the Donut Shop.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

That's what your 5th Amendment Rights are for.

If the dickhead Pig pulls you over for speeding then he should just write a ticket and go away. Where you're going, where you've been and what you have are none of his f*ckin' business.

If he actually has Probable Cause to search your car, then it will stand up in court when you sue his ass. If not then he's in serious trouble.

"Dickhead pig" is a bit radical, but oh well. A little more detail that I could have included: my brother and the State cop knew each other (from way back). In the course of conversation my brother volunteered where he had been, which led to the firearms question. Consent was given to search the vehicle. He had absolutely nothing to hide and he knew he was within the law. It was all amicable.

Amicable, as opposed to adversarial.

The 4th and 5th Amendments apply whether you know the Pig personally or not.

Piggie aint yer friend. None of them are. Their job is to escalate the stop into a Drug Bust or DUI stop which generates revenue for the Town, City or State the Pig works for.

During a Traffic Stop, the Constitution is your ONLY friend.

NEVER Voluntarily Consent to search of your car or yourself. If Piggie doesn't have Reasonable Suspicion or Probable Cause then he needs to go back to the Donut Shop.

How many times have you been arrested?

 

[Mad Scientist]

"Dickhead pig" is a bit radical, but oh well. A little more detail that I could have included: my brother and the State cop knew each other (from way back). In the course of conversation my brother volunteered where he had been, which led to the firearms question. Consent was given to search the vehicle. He had absolutely nothing to hide and he knew he was within the law. It was all amicable.

Amicable, as opposed to adversarial.

The 4th and 5th Amendments apply whether you know the Pig personally or not.

Piggie aint yer friend. None of them are. Their job is to escalate the stop into a Drug Bust or DUI stop which generates revenue for the Town, City or State the Pig works for.

During a Traffic Stop, the Constitution is your ONLY friend.

NEVER Voluntarily Consent to search of your car or yourself. If Piggie doesn't have Reasonable Suspicion or Probable Cause then he needs to go back to the Donut Shop.

How many times have you been arrested?

Zero, and there's a reason for that. I know my Rights.

Pigs are just like any other group, if they think they can push you around they will. They're looking to extract money from you in Tickets and Fines. Don't help them do it!

But Americans think being nice to the Cops will keep them out of trouble. How cute! How did being nice to the Thugs in H.S. work out for ya'?

 

[Mad Scientist]

I posted videos of people with open carry. How come none of you "Nice Guy Cop Supporters" has commented on them?

 

[Mr. H.]

Angry young man.

I view all law enforcement as my friend.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Angry young man.

I view all law enforcement as my friend.

The cops are not your friends. Cops can lie with impunity but if you lie to them it's a felony.

Even an ex cop says you should never ever talk to the police

[youtube]6wXkI4t7nuc[/youtube]

 

[Lonestar_logic]

The 4th and 5th Amendments apply whether you know the Pig personally or not.

Piggie aint yer friend. None of them are. Their job is to escalate the stop into a Drug Bust or DUI stop which generates revenue for the Town, City or State the Pig works for.

During a Traffic Stop, the Constitution is your ONLY friend.

NEVER Voluntarily Consent to search of your car or yourself. If Piggie doesn't have Reasonable Suspicion or Probable Cause then he needs to go back to the Donut Shop.

How many times have you been arrested?

Zero, and there's a reason for that. I know my Rights.

Pigs are just like any other group, if they think they can push you around they will. They're looking to extract money from you in Tickets and Fines. Don't help them do it!

But Americans think being nice to the Cops will keep them out of trouble. How cute! How did being nice to the Thugs in H.S. work out for ya'?

Why such a hatred for police?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I posted videos of people with open carry. How come none of you "Nice Guy Cop Supporters" has commented on them?

A person walking down the road armed, the police should question them. They're just doing their job.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Angry young man.

I view all law enforcement as my friend.

The cops are not your friends. Cops can lie with impunity but if you lie to them it's a felony.

Even an ex cop says you should never ever talk to the police

[youtube]6wXkI4t7nuc[/youtube]

There is good and bad in every profession.

 

[PratchettFan]

Part III: What “arms” meant, circa 1787



As with the 1st Amendment there are common sense limits, we restrain libel, slander pornography, fighting words and speech that incites panic. So there are common sense limits on what we define as "arms", i.e. rockets, missiles, bombs et.al.. I have no problem with that. But when they try to limit the number of bullets and ban semi-auto rifles, that's going too far.

Which is simply how you justify an infringement of the right to keep and bear arms, and you are right. A rational limitation is necessary. A prisoner in a max security prison falls under the category of "the people", but that does not mean he has the right to a firearm in his cell. That is an infringement, but a rational infringement.

I think a limitation on rounds and a ban on certain rifles is constitutional. I also think it is pointless and will not make any difference. I oppose it because it will not work and really is nothing more than a political ploy to make it seem politicians are doing something. I think NY is wrong in how they handle carrying a weapon. I think Illinois is wrong. But what they are doing is constitutional. The citizens of those states have the right to deal with as they desire, not as I desire.

That's where you and I disagree.

I don't think the citizens of New York or Illinois, especially Chicago had a vote in the matter.

When Cuomo signed into law new gun control measures did the citizens have a say in the matter? Was what he did constitutional? An end-run around the legislative and democratic process.

When you start giving up your rights, don't expect to get them back anytime soon.

Of course they had a say in the matter. We are a republic and they elected the people who passed the laws. If they do not like those laws, they can vote those folks out and put other folks in. That's how it works.

As to what Cuomo did, I am not familiar with the New York state constitution, but I presume he was within the law. Otherwise, the argument would not be a 2nd amendment one.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Which is simply how you justify an infringement of the right to keep and bear arms, and you are right. A rational limitation is necessary. A prisoner in a max security prison falls under the category of "the people", but that does not mean he has the right to a firearm in his cell. That is an infringement, but a rational infringement.

I think a limitation on rounds and a ban on certain rifles is constitutional. I also think it is pointless and will not make any difference. I oppose it because it will not work and really is nothing more than a political ploy to make it seem politicians are doing something. I think NY is wrong in how they handle carrying a weapon. I think Illinois is wrong. But what they are doing is constitutional. The citizens of those states have the right to deal with as they desire, not as I desire.

That's where you and I disagree.

I don't think the citizens of New York or Illinois, especially Chicago had a vote in the matter.

When Cuomo signed into law new gun control measures did the citizens have a say in the matter? Was what he did constitutional? An end-run around the legislative and democratic process.

When you start giving up your rights, don't expect to get them back anytime soon.

Of course they had a say in the matter. We are a republic and they elected the people who passed the laws. If they do not like those laws, they can vote those folks out and put other folks in. That's how it works.

As to what Cuomo did, I am not familiar with the New York state constitution, but I presume he was within the law. Otherwise, the argument would not be a 2nd amendment one.

I see, so every law that is passed you agree with and are comfortable with because your representatives passed them?

As of March 11, a total of 52 out of New York State’s 62 counties have introduced resolutions requesting the repeal of the Cuomo's new gun control law.

On the same day the law was passed, the town of Truxton, in Cortland County, NY, became the first municipality in the state to pass a resolution formally expressing its opposition and request to repeal the law. Short and straightforward, the town of Truxton’s resolution reads:

WHEREAS, the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms is guaranteed as an Individual Right under the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and under the Constitution of the State of New York, and;

WHEREAS, the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms for defense of Life, Liberty, and Property is regarded as an Inalienable Right by the People of the Town of Truxton, New York, and:

WHEREAS, the People of the Town of Truxton, New York, derive economic benefit from all safe forms of firearms recreation, hunting, and shooting conducted within the Town of Truxton using all types of firearms allowable under the United States Constitution and the Constitution of the State of New York, and;

WHEREAS, the Town of Truxton Board, being elected to represent the People of the Town of Truxton and being duly sworn by their Oath of Office to uphold the United States Constitution and the Constitution of the State of New York, and;

WHEREAS, the New York Assembly and the New York Senate, being elected by the People of the State of New York and being duly sworn by their Oath of Office to uphold the United States Constitution and the Constitution of the State of New York, and;

WHEREAS, the legislation passed by the New York State Legislature infringes on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and bans the possession and use of firearms now employed by individual citizens of the Town of Truxton, New York, for defense of Life, Liberty and Property and bans the possession and use of firearms now legally owned for safe forms of firearms recreation, hunting and shooting conducted within the Town of Truxton, New York;

NOW, THEREFORE, IT BE AND IS HEREBY RESOLVED that the Town of Truxton Town Board, do hereby oppose the enactment of any legislation that would further infringe upon the Right of the People to keep and bear arms and consider such laws to be unconstitutional and beyond lawful Legislative Authority.


So much for your notion that the citizens were ok with their representatives passing laws on their behalf.

 

[PratchettFan]

That's where you and I disagree.

I don't think the citizens of New York or Illinois, especially Chicago had a vote in the matter.

When Cuomo signed into law new gun control measures did the citizens have a say in the matter? Was what he did constitutional? An end-run around the legislative and democratic process.

When you start giving up your rights, don't expect to get them back anytime soon.

Of course they had a say in the matter. We are a republic and they elected the people who passed the laws. If they do not like those laws, they can vote those folks out and put other folks in. That's how it works.

As to what Cuomo did, I am not familiar with the New York state constitution, but I presume he was within the law. Otherwise, the argument would not be a 2nd amendment one.

I see, so every law that is passed you agree with and are comfortable with because your representatives passed them?

As of March 11, a total of 52 out of New York State’s 62 counties have introduced resolutions requesting the repeal of the Cuomo's new gun control law.

On the same day the law was passed, the town of Truxton, in Cortland County, NY, became the first municipality in the state to pass a resolution formally expressing its opposition and request to repeal the law. Short and straightforward, the town of Truxton’s resolution reads:

WHEREAS, the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms is guaranteed as an Individual Right under the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and under the Constitution of the State of New York, and;

WHEREAS, the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms for defense of Life, Liberty, and Property is regarded as an Inalienable Right by the People of the Town of Truxton, New York, and:

WHEREAS, the People of the Town of Truxton, New York, derive economic benefit from all safe forms of firearms recreation, hunting, and shooting conducted within the Town of Truxton using all types of firearms allowable under the United States Constitution and the Constitution of the State of New York, and;

WHEREAS, the Town of Truxton Board, being elected to represent the People of the Town of Truxton and being duly sworn by their Oath of Office to uphold the United States Constitution and the Constitution of the State of New York, and;

WHEREAS, the New York Assembly and the New York Senate, being elected by the People of the State of New York and being duly sworn by their Oath of Office to uphold the United States Constitution and the Constitution of the State of New York, and;

WHEREAS, the legislation passed by the New York State Legislature infringes on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and bans the possession and use of firearms now employed by individual citizens of the Town of Truxton, New York, for defense of Life, Liberty and Property and bans the possession and use of firearms now legally owned for safe forms of firearms recreation, hunting and shooting conducted within the Town of Truxton, New York;

NOW, THEREFORE, IT BE AND IS HEREBY RESOLVED that the Town of Truxton Town Board, do hereby oppose the enactment of any legislation that would further infringe upon the Right of the People to keep and bear arms and consider such laws to be unconstitutional and beyond lawful Legislative Authority.


So much for your notion that the citizens were ok with their representatives passing laws on their behalf.

No. There are all sorts of laws passed in my state I vehemently oppose. But that does not make them unconstitutional. Nor did I say that everyone in New York thought the restrictions were a good idea. I said that they had a say in the matter because they elect the law makers and can unelect them. Once again, that is how a republic works.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Of course they had a say in the matter. We are a republic and they elected the people who passed the laws. If they do not like those laws, they can vote those folks out and put other folks in. That's how it works.

As to what Cuomo did, I am not familiar with the New York state constitution, but I presume he was within the law. Otherwise, the argument would not be a 2nd amendment one.

I see, so every law that is passed you agree with and are comfortable with because your representatives passed them?

As of March 11, a total of 52 out of New York State’s 62 counties have introduced resolutions requesting the repeal of the Cuomo's new gun control law.

On the same day the law was passed, the town of Truxton, in Cortland County, NY, became the first municipality in the state to pass a resolution formally expressing its opposition and request to repeal the law. Short and straightforward, the town of Truxton’s resolution reads:

WHEREAS, the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms is guaranteed as an Individual Right under the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and under the Constitution of the State of New York, and;

WHEREAS, the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms for defense of Life, Liberty, and Property is regarded as an Inalienable Right by the People of the Town of Truxton, New York, and:

WHEREAS, the People of the Town of Truxton, New York, derive economic benefit from all safe forms of firearms recreation, hunting, and shooting conducted within the Town of Truxton using all types of firearms allowable under the United States Constitution and the Constitution of the State of New York, and;

WHEREAS, the Town of Truxton Board, being elected to represent the People of the Town of Truxton and being duly sworn by their Oath of Office to uphold the United States Constitution and the Constitution of the State of New York, and;

WHEREAS, the New York Assembly and the New York Senate, being elected by the People of the State of New York and being duly sworn by their Oath of Office to uphold the United States Constitution and the Constitution of the State of New York, and;

WHEREAS, the legislation passed by the New York State Legislature infringes on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and bans the possession and use of firearms now employed by individual citizens of the Town of Truxton, New York, for defense of Life, Liberty and Property and bans the possession and use of firearms now legally owned for safe forms of firearms recreation, hunting and shooting conducted within the Town of Truxton, New York;

NOW, THEREFORE, IT BE AND IS HEREBY RESOLVED that the Town of Truxton Town Board, do hereby oppose the enactment of any legislation that would further infringe upon the Right of the People to keep and bear arms and consider such laws to be unconstitutional and beyond lawful Legislative Authority.


So much for your notion that the citizens were ok with their representatives passing laws on their behalf.

No. There are all sorts of laws passed in my state I vehemently oppose. But that does not make them unconstitutional. Nor did I say that everyone in New York thought the restrictions were a good idea. I said that they had a say in the matter because they elect the law makers and can unelect them. Once again, that is how a republic works.

Fact is the citizens don't have a say in what laws are passed. If they did then Cuomo wouldn't or couldn't have passed the new gun control law he passed.

Yes they can un-elect them and re-elect others and have the law repealed but that doesn't change the fact that the law (they didn't agree with but have to abide by) was passed. And no didn't have a say in the matter!