New York "SAFE" act turning into a gun ban program...

[hunarcy]

Talk like that isn't helpful. Nor is breaking the law. In fact, the battleground has shifted from the Courthouse to Congress. Contact your Senator...

I will not be bound by unconstitutional and illegal legislation. It' thst simple. Nor will I hide my willingness to defy such laws.

I live in New England and have for my entire 43+ years of life. I haven't actually had my views represented by any elected politician in my lfetime.

Obviously not in Vermont. Vermont is doing it right! Vermont Gun Laws - Gun | Laws.com

 

[Anathema]

I thought New England was a US State, for minute. I had to look it up.

Does Maine have any gun laws?

New England is a region comprised of six states. Five of those six states are very Liberal, and unfortunately New Hampshire is becoming much more like the other five in recent yars. I've lived in CT, RI, AND MA at different times in my life (MA currently).

 

[Rustic]

Big brother is not needed...

Better aqueducts, better roads, and more well regulated militia, is what is always needed.

The federal government is there for better infrastructure, but the right to bear arms by the individual shall not be infringed, that’s not the federal governments job to be big brother.

The first clause of our Second Amendment, declares what the militia is for.

The rights of the individual to bear arms shall not be infringed… End of story

nope; only well regulated militia of the people are declared necessary to the security of a free State, not defense of self or property.

Lol
Good luck you cowardly ****...

STEP 1: PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT
Either Congress or the states can propose an amendment to the Constitution.

• Both houses of Congress must propose the amendment with a two-thirds vote. This is how all current amendments have been offered.
• Two-thirds of the state legislatures must call on Congress to hold a constitutional convention.

STEP 2. RATIFYING AN AMENDMENT
Regardless of how the amendment is proposed, it must be ratified by the States.

• Three-fourths of the state legislatures must approve of the amendment proposed by Congress, or

• Three-fourths of the states must approve the amendment via ratifying conventions. This method has only been used once, to repeal Prohibition with the 21st Amendment.

 

[danielpalos]

It is standard practice in our republic. Only the right wing, never gets it.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Criminals are a very important part of the Corrupt Democratic Party's voter base, so of course the the Dem politicians want to protect their criminals from armed victims.

 

[Rustic]

It is standard practice in our republic. Only the right wing, never gets it.

Go ahead and try to remove the second amendment...
you need three fourths of the states to agree with you... good luck with that. Lol

 

[2aguy]

Ya, and they were never about the collective, the whole constitution is based on individual rights.

Social contracts are collective, in nature. It should be a self-evident Truth.

The militia of the United States is a Collective, not about Individualism.

But That still does not mean that only the Militia can have firearms, firearm ownership is an absolute right the individual.

No, it's not absolute. There ar

Please...read Heller.....many times.....

From Heller....

There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited...”. It is “...not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

“Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller (an earlier case) said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time”. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ “

Make sure you read it. Many times.

“Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

Yes....what part of that statement allows for magazine limits, gun registration or gun confiscation when the citizen isn't a felon or mentally ill?

I see you like to cherry pick

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited...”. It is “...not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller (an earlier case) said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time”. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ “

Not only can high capacity magazines be prohibited, but semi automatic firearms themselves be prohibited should any state or locality put that prohibition in place.

Don't live under the delusion that because the state you live in has liberal gun laws that the Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution that it is that way in every state.

The case that was brought before the court was a challenge in different states regarding the right to carry a firearm openly, and a right to carry concealed.

The federal government is there for better infrastructure, but the right to bear arms by the individual shall not be infringed, that’s not the federal governments job to be big brother.

The first clause of our Second Amendment, declares what the militia is for.

The rights of the individual to bear arms shall not be infringed… End of story

The Supreme Court says you lose. End of story.

You are the one cherry picking....but the actual decisions are out there, you can't lie about them....

From Heller....

Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individualrights interpretation.

United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54. 2.


Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues.

The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

SCOTUS has already decided. You lost. The debate is over.

No, actually, I won......the Supreme Court already decided......and with Trump's help, they will uphold their decisions....

 

[hunarcy]

I thought New England was a US State, for minute. I had to look it up.

Does Maine have any gun laws?

New England is a region comprised of six states. Five of those six states are very Liberal, and unfortunately New Hampshire is becoming much more like the other five in recent yars. I've lived in CT, RI, AND MA at different times in my life (MA currently).

Move to Vermont

 

[Anathema]

Move to Vermont

Vermont is the most ******* Liberal shit hole of the entire region. It's damn near a Socialist society, despite their slightly more lax firearms regulations. I'd consider more northern regions of New Hampshire if the weather was better or it was closer to my job.

 

[danielpalos]

It is standard practice in our republic. Only the right wing, never gets it.

Go ahead and try to remove the second amendment...
you need three fourths of the states to agree with you... good luck with that. Lol

I am not advocating for removing the Second Amendment. I believe in better aqueducts, better roads, and more well regulated militia; we have, plenty of gun lovers.

 

[skews13]

Social contracts are collective, in nature. It should be a self-evident Truth.

The militia of the United States is a Collective, not about Individualism.

But That still does not mean that only the Militia can have firearms, firearm ownership is an absolute right the individual.

No, it's not absolute. There ar

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited...”. It is “...not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

“Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller (an earlier case) said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time”. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ “

Make sure you read it. Many times.

“Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

Yes....what part of that statement allows for magazine limits, gun registration or gun confiscation when the citizen isn't a felon or mentally ill?

I see you like to cherry pick

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited...”. It is “...not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller (an earlier case) said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time”. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ “

Not only can high capacity magazines be prohibited, but semi automatic firearms themselves be prohibited should any state or locality put that prohibition in place.

Don't live under the delusion that because the state you live in has liberal gun laws that the Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution that it is that way in every state.

The case that was brought before the court was a challenge in different states regarding the right to carry a firearm openly, and a right to carry concealed.

The first clause of our Second Amendment, declares what the militia is for.

The rights of the individual to bear arms shall not be infringed… End of story

The Supreme Court says you lose. End of story.

You are the one cherry picking....but the actual decisions are out there, you can't lie about them....

From Heller....

Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individualrights interpretation.

United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54. 2.


Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues.

The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

SCOTUS has already decided. You lost. The debate is over.

No, actually, I won......the Supreme Court already decided......and with Trump's help, they will uphold their decisions....

So get caught with a concealed weapon in New York, or try carrying a weapon openly in Florida, or try getting an AR 15 in Maryland.

Let me know how that works out for you winner.

 

[Rustic]

But That still does not mean that only the Militia can have firearms, firearm ownership is an absolute right the individual.

No, it's not absolute. There ar

“Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

Yes....what part of that statement allows for magazine limits, gun registration or gun confiscation when the citizen isn't a felon or mentally ill?

I see you like to cherry pick

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited...”. It is “...not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller (an earlier case) said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time”. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ “

Not only can high capacity magazines be prohibited, but semi automatic firearms themselves be prohibited should any state or locality put that prohibition in place.

Don't live under the delusion that because the state you live in has liberal gun laws that the Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution that it is that way in every state.

The case that was brought before the court was a challenge in different states regarding the right to carry a firearm openly, and a right to carry concealed.

The rights of the individual to bear arms shall not be infringed… End of story

The Supreme Court says you lose. End of story.

You are the one cherry picking....but the actual decisions are out there, you can't lie about them....

From Heller....

Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individualrights interpretation.

United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54. 2.


Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues.

The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

SCOTUS has already decided. You lost. The debate is over.

No, actually, I won......the Supreme Court already decided......and with Trump's help, they will uphold their decisions....

So get caught with a concealed weapon in New York, or try carrying a weapon openly in Florida, or try getting an AR 15 in Maryland.

Let me know how that works out for you winner.

It’s funny none of those laws will save a single soul, in fact the opposite is true