Diuretic
Permanently confused
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.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 My point, the entire time, has been that the law is not in accordance with the natural law and as such should be repealed.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.
Is the Sullivan Act still in force?