Hero Defends Shop With Unregistered Gun

[BasicGreatGuy]

I believe in strict constructionism, but I also believe in the natural law. Just because a law is constitutional doesn't mean I have to agree with it. I don't agree with the income tax and believe the 16th Amendment should be repealed immediately. Just because New York has the right to enact a law, under the Constitution, restricting the right to bear arms doesn't mean it's not unjust and in violation of the natural law. Slavery was certainly unjust, but it was sanctioned by the Constitution. The point is, where the Constitution or state law goes against the natural law it is unjust and should be changed.

Said store owner was not prevented by law (natural or otherwise) from protecting himself and his property Kevin. That is a fact. The gun restriction in his state was properly ratified and is congruent with strict constructionism. You can't rightfully state you believe in something, and then proceed to argue against it, which is what you are doing with me Kevin.

Until and unless you can show that the state law was not properly ratified, in violation of its own state constitution, or the Constitution of the United States, you have no solid ground for retort. All you have is emotional dislike. And as you and I both know, that doesn't cut it when we are talking about the Constitution.

The law is not unjust as you keep claiming. The employers of said state had the right and power to make their voices heard, in regards to the proposed law and its subsequent ratification. How can you claim said law is unjust, when the people of that state have exercised their rights, and those rights under that law are congruent with the Constitution of the United States?

This is a classic argument for the "Tyranny of the Majority." Just because a majority of New York's population, through their elected officials, may want gun restrictions doesn't mean that it's right to do so. The rights of the minority must be defended as well. Those calling for this man's prosecution are saying that because the state of New York said so this man doesn't have the right to defend himself from criminals. No one can take away somebody's natural rights, which includes the right to self-defense.

You appear to be inferring that I am making a case for tyranny of the majority. Where in the world did you get that from with my posts? Do tell. You are making an emotional appeal, to use as the mortar for the foundation of your argument.

1) You agreed with me that the II Amendment restricts only the federal government, and not the individual states.

2) The people of said state exercised their rights under their state constitution, as well as the Constitution of the United States. In exercising their rights, they made decisions that you and I do not agree with.

3) The rights spoken of in point two do not violate their state constitution or the Constitution of the United States.

4) The law in question does not prevent a citizen of said state from protecting themselves and their property in any manner.

With all that in mind, tell me how the law in that state is unjust from a constitutional standpoint. If you were to file suit in that state, what would be the point of standing for your suit? Would it be "it is unjust because I don't like it" ? That is your defense thus far. That doesn't cut it in a court of law. If you have a defense to make, that doesn't involve using the heart strings as your subject matter, lets see it.

 

[Diuretic]

This is a classic argument for the "Tyranny of the Majority." Just because a majority of New York's population, through their elected officials, may want gun restrictions doesn't mean that it's right to do so. The rights of the minority must be defended as well. Those calling for this man's prosecution are saying that because the state of New York said so this man doesn't have the right to defend himself from criminals. No one can take away somebody's natural rights, which includes the right to self-defense.

Of course the man has the right to defend himself from criminals, where has anyone argued that in this thread?

Those calling for his prosecution are saying he doesn't have that right. You don't get prosecuted for doing something you have the right to do, therefore they're clearly saying he didn't have the right to defend himself because his gun wasn't registered with the state.

I'd have to say that if anyone is making that argument I'd like to hop in and vehemently disagree. As far as I'm concerned the bloke could have pulled a bazooka from the back room and taken out these crooks. The unregistered firearm is, in comparison to the event, a mere pecadillloe

 

[Diuretic]

Any law that violates a person's natural rights is unjust.

There are no "natural rights". Laws create and specify rights. Laws regulate behaviour, that's why they exist.

The United States was founded with a respect to the natural law. You may not agree with it, but that's the American way.

I find it hard to disagree with facts. From the language I've read surrounding the creation of the United States, yes, she was founded on natural rights. I'm simply arguing that (and sticking my neck out in the process) that there are no "natural rights".

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Said store owner was not prevented by law (natural or otherwise) from protecting himself and his property Kevin. That is a fact. The gun restriction in his state was properly ratified and is congruent with strict constructionism. You can't rightfully state you believe in something, and then proceed to argue against it, which is what you are doing with me Kevin.

Until and unless you can show that the state law was not properly ratified, in violation of its own state constitution, or the Constitution of the United States, you have no solid ground for retort. All you have is emotional dislike. And as you and I both know, that doesn't cut it when we are talking about the Constitution.

The law is not unjust as you keep claiming. The employers of said state had the right and power to make their voices heard, in regards to the proposed law and its subsequent ratification. How can you claim said law is unjust, when the people of that state have exercised their rights, and those rights under that law are congruent with the Constitution of the United States?

This is a classic argument for the "Tyranny of the Majority." Just because a majority of New York's population, through their elected officials, may want gun restrictions doesn't mean that it's right to do so. The rights of the minority must be defended as well. Those calling for this man's prosecution are saying that because the state of New York said so this man doesn't have the right to defend himself from criminals. No one can take away somebody's natural rights, which includes the right to self-defense.

You appear to be inferring that I am making a case for tyranny of the majority. Where in the world did you get that from with my posts? Do tell. You are making an emotional appeal, to use as the mortar for the foundation of your argument.

1) You agreed with me that the II Amendment restricts only the federal government, and not the individual states.

2) The people of said state exercised their rights under their state constitution, as well as the Constitution of the United States. In exercising their rights, they made decisions that you and I do not agree with.

3) The rights spoken of in point two do not violate their state constitution or the Constitution of the United States.

4) The law in question does not prevent a citizen of said state from protecting themselves and their property in any manner.

With all that in mind, tell me how the law in that state is unjust from a constitutional standpoint. If you were to file suit in that said against said law, you can rightfully petition the court by saying, "it is unjust because I don't like it." That is your defense thus far. That doesn't cut it in a court of law. If you have a defense to make, that doesn't involve using the heart strings as your subject matter, lets see it.

I've already pointed out that the law is in accordance with the Constitution. My point, the entire time, has been that the law is not in accordance with the natural law and as such should be repealed. I said that you are arguing for the tyranny of the majority because you are making the argument that this man doesn't have the right to defend himself simply because the state of New York favors gun restrictions.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

This is a classic argument for the "Tyranny of the Majority." Just because a majority of New York's population, through their elected officials, may want gun restrictions doesn't mean that it's right to do so. The rights of the minority must be defended as well. Those calling for this man's prosecution are saying that because the state of New York said so this man doesn't have the right to defend himself from criminals. No one can take away somebody's natural rights, which includes the right to self-defense.

You appear to be inferring that I am making a case for tyranny of the majority. Where in the world did you get that from with my posts? Do tell. You are making an emotional appeal, to use as the mortar for the foundation of your argument.

1) You agreed with me that the II Amendment restricts only the federal government, and not the individual states.

2) The people of said state exercised their rights under their state constitution, as well as the Constitution of the United States. In exercising their rights, they made decisions that you and I do not agree with.

3) The rights spoken of in point two do not violate their state constitution or the Constitution of the United States.

4) The law in question does not prevent a citizen of said state from protecting themselves and their property in any manner.

With all that in mind, tell me how the law in that state is unjust from a constitutional standpoint. If you were to file suit in that said against said law, you can rightfully petition the court by saying, "it is unjust because I don't like it." That is your defense thus far. That doesn't cut it in a court of law. If you have a defense to make, that doesn't involve using the heart strings as your subject matter, lets see it.

I've already pointed out that the law is in accordance with the Constitution. My point, the entire time, has been that the law is not in accordance with the natural law and as such should be repealed. I said that you are arguing for the tyranny of the majority because you are making the argument that this man doesn't have the right to defend himself simply because the state of New York favors gun restrictions.

Where in this thread have I stated, that the store owner did not have the right to defend himself and his property? I haven't stated any such thing and I challenge you to link to any post stating such.

You have been making an emotional appeal. You have no worthy retort. If you did, you would have presented it.

You have contradicted yourself once again in this post Kevin. Either you believe the Constitution should be properly followed or you don't. Telling me you agree with the proper interpretation and adjudication of the II Amendment in one breath, while saying the law is unjust when the people have exercise their rights, is in fact a contradiction made by you.

Just because I don't agree with gun restriction laws, that does not mean that they are in fact unjust nor does it mean that I am stating that one does not have the right to defend themselves and their property.

Pick a side and stick to it Kevin. You can't play both fields and expect to have solid footing. You have no valid legal argument. What is left?

 

[WillowTree]

The US Senate and the US House of Rep. have been breaking the law for decades by not enforcing the immigration law. Isn't it a law that they swear to uphold the law.. don't talk to me about citizens obeying the law when the congresscritters break the law every day. everybody say amen!

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

The US Senate and the US House of Rep. have been breaking the law for decades by not enforcing the immigration law. Isn't it a law that they swear to uphold the law.. don't talk to me about citizens obeying the law when the congresscritters break the law every day. everybody say amen!

This post has nothing to do with the actual subject matter of the II Amendment.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You appear to be inferring that I am making a case for tyranny of the majority. Where in the world did you get that from with my posts? Do tell. You are making an emotional appeal, to use as the mortar for the foundation of your argument.

1) You agreed with me that the II Amendment restricts only the federal government, and not the individual states.

2) The people of said state exercised their rights under their state constitution, as well as the Constitution of the United States. In exercising their rights, they made decisions that you and I do not agree with.

3) The rights spoken of in point two do not violate their state constitution or the Constitution of the United States.

4) The law in question does not prevent a citizen of said state from protecting themselves and their property in any manner.

With all that in mind, tell me how the law in that state is unjust from a constitutional standpoint. If you were to file suit in that said against said law, you can rightfully petition the court by saying, "it is unjust because I don't like it." That is your defense thus far. That doesn't cut it in a court of law. If you have a defense to make, that doesn't involve using the heart strings as your subject matter, lets see it.

I've already pointed out that the law is in accordance with the Constitution. My point, the entire time, has been that the law is not in accordance with the natural law and as such should be repealed. I said that you are arguing for the tyranny of the majority because you are making the argument that this man doesn't have the right to defend himself simply because the state of New York favors gun restrictions.

Where in this thread have I stated, that the store owner did not have the right to defend himself and his property? I haven't stated any such thing and I challenge you to link to any post stating such.

You have been making an emotional appeal. You have no worthy retort. If you did, you would have presented it.

You have contradicted yourself once again in this post Kevin. Either you believe the Constitution should be properly followed or you don't. Telling me you agree with the proper interpretation and adjudication of the II Amendment in one breath, while saying the law is unjust when the people have exercise their rights, is in fact a contradiction made by you.

Just because I don't agree with gun restriction laws, that does not mean that they are in fact unjust nor does it mean that I am stating that one does not have the right to defend themselves and their property.

Pick a side and stick to it Kevin. You can't play both fields and expect to have solid footing. You have no valid legal argument. What is left?

You claim the law is not unjust, and that this man broke the law. Therefore, you're saying that this man unjustly defended himself in violation of the law. That means you do not recognize his natural right to defend himself as superior to the positive law that says he can't.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

I've already pointed out that the law is in accordance with the Constitution. My point, the entire time, has been that the law is not in accordance with the natural law and as such should be repealed. I said that you are arguing for the tyranny of the majority because you are making the argument that this man doesn't have the right to defend himself simply because the state of New York favors gun restrictions.

Where in this thread have I stated, that the store owner did not have the right to defend himself and his property? I haven't stated any such thing and I challenge you to link to any post stating such.

You have been making an emotional appeal. You have no worthy retort. If you did, you would have presented it.

You have contradicted yourself once again in this post Kevin. Either you believe the Constitution should be properly followed or you don't. Telling me you agree with the proper interpretation and adjudication of the II Amendment in one breath, while saying the law is unjust when the people have exercise their rights, is in fact a contradiction made by you.

Just because I don't agree with gun restriction laws, that does not mean that they are in fact unjust nor does it mean that I am stating that one does not have the right to defend themselves and their property.

Pick a side and stick to it Kevin. You can't play both fields and expect to have solid footing. You have no valid legal argument. What is left?

You claim the law is not unjust, and that this man broke the law. Therefore, you're saying that this man unjustly defended himself in violation of the law. That means you do not recognize his natural right to defend himself as superior to the positive law that says he can't.

I stated that I am glad he killed some of the thugs. In my first post, I said Good for Augusto. I also said that he did break the law. How does that equate to being against his right to defend himself? It only equates to that if you use logical fallacy as your reasoning, which you did when you created this post.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Did some research...
There is no requirement to register rifles or shotguns in New York State.

However...

The city of New York requires registration and licensing for any and all firearms in the city.

NRA-ILA: New York City Firearms Laws

It is unlawful for a person to possess a rifle or shotgun unless he is the holder of a permit as well as a certificate of registration, issued by the Firearms Control Section of the Police Department's License Division for each rifle or shotgun.

The entire law, is a miles-long PDF I'll link >here< and I found this little diddie in it:

Except as is otherwise provided in sections 10-302 and 10-303.1, violation of sections 10-301 through 10-309 shall be a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars or imprisonment of not more than one year or both

The law goes on to state that this becomes a felony if the firearm is used in the commission of any other crime. I didn't hunt through that miles-long PDF to see if there's a "grandfather" clause, but I did see there are exceptions for dealer weapons, and for antique weapons.

But like Jillian said earlier, prosecutorial discretion is always at play. Then the Judge would have final say on any sentencing.

It's basically no more than a DWI case, for the shooter.

And no word yet from the great MSNBC reporters as to whether the robbers' guns were registered, of course.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Where in this thread have I stated, that the store owner did not have the right to defend himself and his property? I haven't stated any such thing and I challenge you to link to any post stating such.

You have been making an emotional appeal. You have no worthy retort. If you did, you would have presented it.

You have contradicted yourself once again in this post Kevin. Either you believe the Constitution should be properly followed or you don't. Telling me you agree with the proper interpretation and adjudication of the II Amendment in one breath, while saying the law is unjust when the people have exercise their rights, is in fact a contradiction made by you.

Just because I don't agree with gun restriction laws, that does not mean that they are in fact unjust nor does it mean that I am stating that one does not have the right to defend themselves and their property.

Pick a side and stick to it Kevin. You can't play both fields and expect to have solid footing. You have no valid legal argument. What is left?

You claim the law is not unjust, and that this man broke the law. Therefore, you're saying that this man unjustly defended himself in violation of the law. That means you do not recognize his natural right to defend himself as superior to the positive law that says he can't.

I stated that I am glad he killed some of the thugs. In my first post, I said Good for Augusto. I also said that he did break the law. How does that equate to being against his right to defend himself? It only equates to that if you use logical fallacy as your reasoning, which you did when you created this post.

If you accept that the law is just and that he broke the law then you are saying he unjustly and illegally defended himself, which means that he did not have the right to defend himself. There is no logical fallacy in that assessment.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

You claim the law is not unjust, and that this man broke the law. Therefore, you're saying that this man unjustly defended himself in violation of the law. That means you do not recognize his natural right to defend himself as superior to the positive law that says he can't.

I stated that I am glad he killed some of the thugs. In my first post, I said Good for Augusto. I also said that he did break the law. How does that equate to being against his right to defend himself? It only equates to that if you use logical fallacy as your reasoning, which you did when you created this post.

If you accept that the law is just and that he broke the law then you are saying he unjustly and illegally defended himself, which means that he did not have the right to defend himself. There is no logical fallacy in that assessment.

You are making a logical fallacy. He did break the law. Did I say he didn't have a right to defend himself? No, I did not. I have already stated in the thread more than once (on a personal level), that I don't think there should be gun restrictions. But, according to the Constitution, the states have a right to place restrictions on the right to bear arms.

 

[brewerboy]

Good for this dude.

I'm sure he kinda feels like shit about it all now, but he did what he had to do given the circumstances.

And honestly, I doubt the police touch him over the registration thing. Just a hunch.

 

[Diuretic]

Good for this dude.

I'm sure he kinda feels like shit about it all now, but he did what he had to do given the circumstances.

And honestly, I doubt the police touch him over the registration thing. Just a hunch.

Eloquently summarised!

 

[jillian]

Did some research...
There is no requirement to register rifles or shotguns in New York State.

However...

The city of New York requires registration and licensing for any and all firearms in the city.

NRA-ILA: New York City Firearms Laws

It is unlawful for a person to possess a rifle or shotgun unless he is the holder of a permit as well as a certificate of registration, issued by the Firearms Control Section of the Police Department's License Division for each rifle or shotgun.

The entire law, is a miles-long PDF I'll link >here< and I found this little diddie in it:

Except as is otherwise provided in sections 10-302 and 10-303.1, violation of sections 10-301 through 10-309 shall be a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars or imprisonment of not more than one year or both

The law goes on to state that this becomes a felony if the firearm is used in the commission of any other crime. I didn't hunt through that miles-long PDF to see if there's a "grandfather" clause, but I did see there are exceptions for dealer weapons, and for antique weapons.

But like Jillian said earlier, prosecutorial discretion is always at play. Then the Judge would have final say on any sentencing.

It's basically no more than a DWI case, for the shooter.

And no word yet from the great MSNBC reporters as to whether the robbers' guns were registered, of course.

I'm afraid whether the robbers' guns were registered is irrelevant.... if they broke the law, it doesn't justify the storeowner's breaking the law, too.

It's also not that difficult to register a long arm in NYC.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

Did some research...
There is no requirement to register rifles or shotguns in New York State.

However...

The city of New York requires registration and licensing for any and all firearms in the city.

NRA-ILA: New York City Firearms Laws

It is unlawful for a person to possess a rifle or shotgun unless he is the holder of a permit as well as a certificate of registration, issued by the Firearms Control Section of the Police Department's License Division for each rifle or shotgun.

The entire law, is a miles-long PDF I'll link >here< and I found this little diddie in it:

Except as is otherwise provided in sections 10-302 and 10-303.1, violation of sections 10-301 through 10-309 shall be a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars or imprisonment of not more than one year or both

The law goes on to state that this becomes a felony if the firearm is used in the commission of any other crime. I didn't hunt through that miles-long PDF to see if there's a "grandfather" clause, but I did see there are exceptions for dealer weapons, and for antique weapons.

But like Jillian said earlier, prosecutorial discretion is always at play. Then the Judge would have final say on any sentencing.

It's basically no more than a DWI case, for the shooter.

And no word yet from the great MSNBC reporters as to whether the robbers' guns were registered, of course.

I'm afraid whether the robbers' guns were registered is irrelevant.... if they broke the law, it doesn't justify the storeowner's breaking the law, too.

It's also not that difficult to register a long arm in NYC.

It is relevant for the thugs who were a party to the attempted robbery and still alive. They will be charged accordingly. How can you say it is irrelevant on one hand, while saying it is relevant on the other?

 

[pete]

I didn't read the link, but if his gun was unregistered, doesn't that make him a criminal as well?

Well then we should arrest him immediately for likely saving the lives of his employees.

Then he should have registered his gun.

FWIW, they chose not to prosecute him. Funny how I agreed with that until I started reading this thread.

Apparently there are new restrictions in ny NYC Rifle/Shotgun Section: ? for RKBA - Northeastshooters.com
and it is possible that he has had the gun since like what 14 years of age so maybe a "grandfather clause"
Great Job I just wish more people would take this initiative it would make the criminals think twice and if not there would be less of them!!

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Did some research...
There is no requirement to register rifles or shotguns in New York State.

However...

The city of New York requires registration and licensing for any and all firearms in the city.

NRA-ILA: New York City Firearms Laws

It is unlawful for a person to possess a rifle or shotgun unless he is the holder of a permit as well as a certificate of registration, issued by the Firearms Control Section of the Police Department's License Division for each rifle or shotgun.

The entire law, is a miles-long PDF I'll link >here< and I found this little diddie in it:

Except as is otherwise provided in sections 10-302 and 10-303.1, violation of sections 10-301 through 10-309 shall be a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars or imprisonment of not more than one year or both

The law goes on to state that this becomes a felony if the firearm is used in the commission of any other crime. I didn't hunt through that miles-long PDF to see if there's a "grandfather" clause, but I did see there are exceptions for dealer weapons, and for antique weapons.

But like Jillian said earlier, prosecutorial discretion is always at play. Then the Judge would have final say on any sentencing.

It's basically no more than a DWI case, for the shooter.

And no word yet from the great MSNBC reporters as to whether the robbers' guns were registered, of course.

I'm afraid whether the robbers' guns were registered is irrelevant.... if they broke the law, it doesn't justify the storeowner's breaking the law, too.

It's also not that difficult to register a long arm in NYC.

If the shooter's weapon not being registered is relevant, then the robbers weapons not being registered is relevant as well. 5 W's and the H Jillian, fair reporting, unless the reporter's agenda was to make victims out of the hoodlums.

In Journalism 101 the whole part about the shotgun not being registered would have been edited out of the story, unless ALL weapons were so scrutinized.

But, "None of the firearms used in this incident were registered" didn't fit the agenda.

It's simply an example of biased reporting.

 

[jillian]

It is relevant for the thugs who were a party to the attempted robbery and still alive. They will be charged accordingly. How can you say it is irrelevant on one hand, while saying it is relevant on the other?

we were discussing the storeowner's culpability.

i don't think anyone thinks any surviving robbers shouldn't be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

therefore, their culpability is irrelevant to the shopowner's.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

It is relevant for the thugs who were a party to the attempted robbery and still alive. They will be charged accordingly. How can you say it is irrelevant on one hand, while saying it is relevant on the other?

we were discussing the storeowner's culpability.

i don't think anyone thinks any surviving robbers shouldn't be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

therefore, their culpability is irrelevant to the shopowner's.

Then why bring up the culpability of the perps? It makes no sense, seeing how we have been discussing the II Amendment as it relates to the store owner and peripherally speaking the citizens of said state.