Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Your retort has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion. You and Kevin don't have exclusive rights to this forum. Again, why are you confusing New York state and New York city rights regarding gun laws in the United States? Cities don't have the right to make gun laws. We just saw the Washington DC law get shot down because it was illegal.You peop]le continue to confuse New York State gun control laws with New York City laws which are against the law because our constitution does not give municipalities the right to establish laws which do not adhere to the state laws. The state of New York does not require the registration of a shotgun. Period. Case closed.
What is this "you people" crap? I am not a "you people." I am my own person.
Kevin and I were not debating the legal nuances that you retorted with here. If you read our exchanges from today, you will see that.
OK, then let's get back on track here. Show me where the city of New York has the legal constitutional right to make gun laws that are different from their state laws.Your retort has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion. You and Kevin don't have exclusive rights to this forum. Again, why are you confusing New York state and New York city rights regarding gun laws in the United States? Cities don't have the right to make gun laws. We just saw the Washington DC law get shot down because it was illegal.What is this "you people" crap? I am not a "you people." I am my own person.
Kevin and I were not debating the legal nuances that you retorted with here. If you read our exchanges from today, you will see that.
I posted from the state constitution. How is that not relevant? Did I say I had exclusive rights to anything here? No. You replied with the "you people" crap. The only one that has a chip on the shoulder, is you.
OK, then let's get back on track here. Show me where the city of New York has the legal constitutional right to make gun laws that are different from their state laws.Your retort has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion. You and Kevin don't have exclusive rights to this forum. Again, why are you confusing New York state and New York city rights regarding gun laws in the United States? Cities don't have the right to make gun laws. We just saw the Washington DC law get shot down because it was illegal.
I posted from the state constitution. How is that not relevant? Did I say I had exclusive rights to anything here? No. You replied with the "you people" crap. The only one that has a chip on the shoulder, is you.
OK, then let's get back on track here. Show me where the city of New York has the legal constitutional right to make gun laws that are different from their state laws.I posted from the state constitution. How is that not relevant? Did I say I had exclusive rights to anything here? No. You replied with the "you people" crap. The only one that has a chip on the shoulder, is you.
Start with Article IV of the State Constitution. The Bill of Rights for local governments section. There are several relevant sections that speak to the local governments and their powers. I posted a section of it earlier tonight.
OK, then let's get back on track here. Show me where the city of New York has the legal constitutional right to make gun laws that are different from their state laws.
Start with Article IV of the State Constitution. The Bill of Rights for local governments section. There are several relevant sections that speak to the local governments and their powers. I posted a section of it earlier tonight.
ok, so from what I said earlier, why can't the local governments limit free speech, religion, etc?
Start with Article IV of the State Constitution. The Bill of Rights for local governments section. There are several relevant sections that speak to the local governments and their powers. I posted a section of it earlier tonight.
ok, so from what I said earlier, why can't the local governments limit free speech, religion, etc?
This thread isn't about the First Amendment. But to answer your question, unless the constitution of the individual states prevent any restriction, they are free to place restrictions on free speech and religion per the Constitution of the United States. "Congress shall pass no law..."
Start with Article IV of the State Constitution. The Bill of Rights for local governments section. There are several relevant sections that speak to the local governments and their powers. I posted a section of it earlier tonight.
ok, so from what I said earlier, why can't the local governments limit free speech, religion, etc?
This thread isn't about the First Amendment. But to answer your question, unless the constitution of the individual states prevent any restriction, they are free to place restrictions on free speech and religion per the Constitution of the United States. "Congress shall pass no law..."
ok, so from what I said earlier, why can't the local governments limit free speech, religion, etc?
This thread isn't about the First Amendment. But to answer your question, unless the constitution of the individual states prevent any restriction, they are free to place restrictions on free speech and religion per the Constitution of the United States. "Congress shall pass no law..."
if you're going to impede one amendment, why not the others, that is the connection.
ok, so from what I said earlier, why can't the local governments limit free speech, religion, etc?
This thread isn't about the First Amendment. But to answer your question, unless the constitution of the individual states prevent any restriction, they are free to place restrictions on free speech and religion per the Constitution of the United States. "Congress shall pass no law..."
Wait. so if any state lacks "prevention", a city could allow only KKK newspapers to be distributed?
This thread isn't about the First Amendment. But to answer your question, unless the constitution of the individual states prevent any restriction, they are free to place restrictions on free speech and religion per the Constitution of the United States. "Congress shall pass no law..."
Wait. so if any state lacks "prevention", a city could allow only KKK newspapers to be distributed?
Every state situation is different. It depends on the specifics of the pertinent laws in question. I can't give you a blanket answer to that question. Said newspapers could be construed as inciteful to public safety etc., and thus not allowed by the state. Who knows.
Wait. so if any state lacks "prevention", a city could allow only KKK newspapers to be distributed?
Every state situation is different. It depends on the specifics of the pertinent laws in question. I can't give you a blanket answer to that question. Said newspapers could be construed as inciteful to public safety etc., and thus not allowed by the state. Who knows.
Uh, forgive me, but I don't like what I'm "hearing'.
Every state situation is different. It depends on the specifics of the pertinent laws in question. I can't give you a blanket answer to that question. Said newspapers could be construed as inciteful to public safety etc., and thus not allowed by the state. Who knows.
Uh, forgive me, but I don't like what I'm "hearing'.
Why is that? You asked about the First and II Amendments. They are restrictions on the federal government not the individual states, unless you believe in incorporation, and want the feds to have any more power.
People don't like to hear it, but unless the state government laws already prevent any restrictions, the local and state governments can place restrictions on the First and II Amendments. That is how the amendments and the Bill of Rights were written and set up to begin with.
Uh, forgive me, but I don't like what I'm "hearing'.
Why is that? You asked about the First and II Amendments. They are restrictions on the federal government not the individual states, unless you believe in incorporation, and want the feds to have any more power.
People don't like to hear it, but unless the state government laws already prevent any restrictions, the local and state governments can place restrictions on the First and II Amendments. That is how the amendments and the Bill of Rights were written and set up to begin with.
Rights should not be infringed upon by state or city govts. How was desegregation ever forced on Governor Wallace?
Why is that? You asked about the First and II Amendments. They are restrictions on the federal government not the individual states, unless you believe in incorporation, and want the feds to have any more power.
People don't like to hear it, but unless the state government laws already prevent any restrictions, the local and state governments can place restrictions on the First and II Amendments. That is how the amendments and the Bill of Rights were written and set up to begin with.
Rights should not be infringed upon by state or city govts. How was desegregation ever forced on Governor Wallace?
"If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself." James Madison Federalist Papers #51
You may not like it, but that is how our Constitution was written.
Rights should not be infringed upon by state or city govts. How was desegregation ever forced on Governor Wallace?
"If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself." James Madison Federalist Papers #51
You may not like it, but that is how our Constitution was written.
yes, govern the governed, I agree. Keep people from violating each others' rights. but the state govt infringing on people's rights?
"If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself." James Madison Federalist Papers #51
You may not like it, but that is how our Constitution was written.
yes, govern the governed, I agree. Keep people from violating each others' rights. but the state govt infringing on people's rights?
As I said, there is no such thing as an absolute right without accountability. The state has the right to set any restrictions via the voice of the employers, so long as those laws do not violate the Constitution of the United States.
If your state has an established law dealing with a specific part of free speech, and an entity within your state places restrictions on your person that are not congruent with the established law, that is an infringement of your right.
The Constitution was written so that the federal government would be the weakest link in the proverbial chain. The states are supposed to have the most power, not the federal government.
Rights should not be infringed upon by state or city govts. How was desegregation ever forced on Governor Wallace?
"If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself." James Madison Federalist Papers #51
You may not like it, but that is how our Constitution was written.
yes, govern the governed, I agree. Keep people from violating each others' rights. but the state govt infringing on people's rights?
No.so you're saying the state of california, for example, could get rid of free speech, religion, etc, and set up a Nazi-style state if it wanted, ie only Nazi newspapers, no speaking out against Arnold by penalty of life imprisonment, etc. ??
I didn't read the link, but if his gun was unregistered, doesn't that make him a criminal as well?
He's innocent until proven guilty. And it looks at present like no charges are being brought.
I'd prefer to see the gun registered, but if a gun is unregistered I'd prefer to see it in the hands of someone like the store owner rather than the guys who tried to rob him.
For me, this only becomes a problem when the wrong guy gets shot. In this case the wrong guy wasn't but, if charges are brought, then unfortunately he is probably going to be found guilty.
If this happens, I hope the judge convicts him of a misdemeanor and fines him $1.
I feel potentially sorry for the families of the victims, but punishing the old guy would be, in my view, un-American. Then again, I'm not American so what do I know.
Well, if he broke the law he should face some sort of punishment. While I may disagree with the law, people just can't decide for themselves which laws they are going to follow and which they are not. Just doesn't work that way. I disagree with income taxes, but I'm still going to pay them. If I didn't, I wouldn't get a pass just because I don't like them.
In this specific case, if indeed he did violate the law (remember, we're dealing with one line factoid in an MSNBC story), I'm pretty sure that it would just be a misdemeanor. In which case he would probably have to pay a minimal fine and go on with his life.
The law in question here is an illegal law to begin with. The city of New York has no legal right to require registration of shotguns. If you disagree, show me your proof.
