No one is going to take your guns

[jon_berzerk]

Banning a 22 bolt action rifle that holds over 5 rounds.

LMAO

We need to start weeding out the Communist in this country one loser at a time

-Geaux

i would prefer a whole bunch at one time

 

[NYcarbineer]

Isn't it amazing how many times people say that, and how they are always proven wrong?

It seems that NYC is ordering people to surrender their weapons, or else.

Doug Ross @ Journal: IT BEGINS: New York Gun Confiscation Letters Arrive

Those guns are illegal in New York City, you dope.

That's how stupid the law is, which is the bigger point

-Geaux

No, the point is that you people don't want guns registered because you want it easier for people to conceal the fact that they own illegal guns.

And if the people of a city or a state want a certain gun law, so what? At least by your own standards, so what?

You rightwingers are always harping about states rights and the 10th amendment and all that crap...

 

[Geaux4it]

Hey fellow dopes.............

We must be misunderstanding the left's real intent here...........

They aren't trying to take away guns from Law Abiding Citizens..........

Not at all................

And then they call you a dope showing their trophy ban of weapons in NY.............

So, FELLOW DOPES............we must register them all, and FEAR NOT they will save us from the AWESOME FIREPOWER OF THE 22 LR....................

My God, it could kill a Moose..............

LOL

Indeed- When seconds count. the fuzz is only minutes away.

-Geaux

 

[Geaux4it]

Those guns are illegal in New York City, you dope.

That's how stupid the law is, which is the bigger point

-Geaux

No, the point is that you people don't want guns registered because you want it easier for people to conceal the fact that they own illegal guns.

And if the people of a city or a state want a certain gun law, so what? At least by your own standards, so what?

You rightwingers are always harping about states rights and the 10th amendment and all that crap...

 

[NYcarbineer]

Those guns are illegal in New York City, you dope.

That's how stupid the law is, which is the bigger point

-Geaux

funny thing though

the law only targeted law abiding citizens

(those that obeyed the registration law originally)

the criminal who did not obey the law is content

in the knowing that the city does not know they

they have firearms

We should get rid of any laws that some people break?

That's the most retarded thing I've ever heard on this forum.

 

[mskafka]

One headshot with a .22 delivered from any weapon, and you're toast. I've seen dozens of .22 GSW's; and few of those wounded survived. Just FYI.

 

[eagle1462010]

Those guns are illegal in New York City, you dope.

That's how stupid the law is, which is the bigger point

-Geaux

No, the point is that you people don't want guns registered because you want it easier for people to conceal the fact that they own illegal guns.

And if the people of a city or a state want a certain gun law, so what? At least by your own standards, so what?

You rightwingers are always harping about states rights and the 10th amendment and all that crap...

I've know a taxidermist who can mount that Gun Ban for you lib...............

But no, no one wants to ban guns........Right as you proudly show the Gun Ban Mount above the evil fire place that you don't use because it's killing the planet.....

Here's your problem Lib...............The Constitution.................That terrible document that would have to be amended to get your way..........

Do you need a box of tissues.............

 

[Geaux4it]

That's how stupid the law is, which is the bigger point

-Geaux

funny thing though

the law only targeted law abiding citizens

(those that obeyed the registration law originally)

the criminal who did not obey the law is content

in the knowing that the city does not know they

they have firearms

We should get rid of any laws that some people break?

That's the most retarded thing I've ever heard on this forum.

Only the Unconstitutional ones like the one the letter represents

So, you feel all laws should be enforced?

-Geaux

 

[eagle1462010]

22 LR is a great gun

cheaper on bullets too.........

Nothing wrong with it unless your a lib who thinks GUNS EVIL...........

 

[eagle1462010]

Riddle me this..................

Has NY violated the Constitution here.................The Constitution is not allowed to be violated by the states and NY........

 

[Geaux4it]

22 LR is a great gun

cheaper on bullets too.........

Nothing wrong with it unless your a lib who thinks GUNS EVIL...........

Not surprising considering said libs also will not eat anything that has eyes. Which MO shows quite well in my sig. Got her pie hole full on the munch and has another steam shovel full on deck. LMAO

-Geaux

 

[mskafka]

Some of you in here have a level of anger that is pathological.

 

[jon_berzerk]

That's how stupid the law is, which is the bigger point

-Geaux

funny thing though

the law only targeted law abiding citizens

(those that obeyed the registration law originally)

the criminal who did not obey the law is content

in the knowing that the city does not know they

they have firearms

We should get rid of any laws that some people break?

That's the most retarded thing I've ever heard on this forum.

the law was targeted at the law abiding

criminals are not required nor can they to register their firearms

self incriminating

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Isn't it amazing how many times people say that, and how they are always proven wrong?

There’s nothing in the OP citing a case where a citizen’s gun was ‘confiscated’ and a hearing conducted subsequently to determine if the taking was warranted, and if warranted what the just compensation would be in accordance with the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause.

Such a case would be part of the public record and available to the OP to document.

Absent a sample case as proof, no ‘confiscation’ has taken place.

What’s not amazing is the OP is once again wrong, and once again only succeeded in exhibiting his ignorance.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Isn't it amazing how many times people say that, and how they are always proven wrong?

There’s nothing in the OP citing a case where a citizen’s gun was ‘confiscated’ and a hearing conducted subsequently to determine if the taking was warranted, and if warranted what the just compensation would be in accordance with the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause.

Such a case would be part of the public record and available to the OP to document.

Absent a sample case as proof, no ‘confiscation’ has taken place.

What’s not amazing is the OP is once again wrong, and once again only succeeded in exhibiting his ignorance.

So people should just ignore the letter ?

 

[Geaux4it]

Some of you in here have a level of anger that is pathological.

I agree- The leftist hate of our constitution is mind boggling.

-Geaux

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

There will be blood, and hell to pay for this. These idiots do not realize the Pandora's box they just opened on themselves. For the gun owners of New York: Do not give in to their demands. You have your rights.

The Second Amendment:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

You forgot to cite the case where a court ruled the law was un-Constitutional.

And the Second Amendment, as with the rest of the Constitution, exists only in the context of its case law; to simply cite an Amendment absent that context is ignorant and meaningless – as is the rest of your ridiculous, hyperbolic post.

 

[Geaux4it]

There will be blood, and hell to pay for this. These idiots do not realize the Pandora's box they just opened on themselves. For the gun owners of New York: Do not give in to their demands. You have your rights.

The Second Amendment:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

You forgot to cite the case where a court ruled the law was un-Constitutional.

And the Second Amendment, as with the rest of the Constitution, exists only in the context of its case law; to simply cite an Amendment absent that context is ignorant and meaningless – as is the rest of your ridiculous, hyperbolic post.

District of Columbia vs Heller

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

Justice Scalia, Opinion of the Court

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., PETITIONERS v.
DICK ANTHONY HELLER

on writ of certiorari to the united states court ofappeals for the district of columbia circuit

[June 26, 2008]
Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court.

We consider whether a District of Columbia prohibition on the possession of usable handguns in the home violates the Second Amendment to the Constitution.

Respondent Dick Heller is a D. C. special police officer authorized to carry a handgun while on duty at the Federal Judicial Center. He applied for a registration certificate for a handgun that he wished to keep at home, but the District refused. He thereafter filed a lawsuit in the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia seeking, on Second Amendment grounds, to enjoin the city from enforcing the bar on the registration of handguns, the licensing requirement insofar as it prohibits the carrying of a firearm in the home without a license, and the trigger-lock requirement insofar as it prohibits the use of “functional firearms within the home.” App. 59a. The District Court dismissed respondent’s complaint, see Parker v. District of Columbia, 311 F. Supp. 2d 103, 109 (2004). The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, construing his complaint as seeking the right to render a firearm operable and carry it about his home in that condition only when necessary for self-defense,2 reversed, see Parker v. District of Columbia, 478 F. 3d 370, 401 (2007). It held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms and that the city’s total ban on handguns, as well as its requirement that firearms in the home be kept nonfunctional even when necessary for self-defense, violated that right. See id., at 395, 399–401. The Court of Appeals directed the District Court to enter summary judgment for respondent.

We granted certiorari. 552 U. S. ___ (2007).


From our review of founding-era sources, we conclude that this natural meaning was also the meaning that “bear arms” had in the 18th century. In numerous instances, “bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia. The most prominent examples are those most relevant to the Second Amendment : Nine state constitutional provisions written in the 18th century or the first two decades of the 19th, which enshrined a right of citizens to “bear arms in defense of themselves and the state” or “bear arms in defense of himself and the state.” 8 It is clear from those formulations that “bear arms” did not refer only to carrying a weapon in an organized military unit. Justice James Wilson interpreted the Pennsylvania Constitution’s arms-bearing right, for example, as a recognition of the natural right of defense “of one’s person or house”—what he called the law of “self preservation.” 2 Collected Works of James Wilson 1142, and n. x (K. Hall & M. Hall eds. 2007) (citing Pa. Const., Art. IX, §21 (1790)); see also T. Walker, Introduction to American Law 198 (1837) (“Thus the right of self-defence [is] guaranteed by the [Ohio] constitution” see also id., at 157 (equating Second Amendment with that provision of the Ohio Constitution). That was also the interpretation of those state constitutional provisions adopted by pre-Civil War state courts.9 These provisions demonstrate—again, in the most analogous linguistic context—that “bear arms” was not limited to the carrying of arms in a militia.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

funny thing though

the law only targeted law abiding citizens

(those that obeyed the registration law originally)

the criminal who did not obey the law is content

in the knowing that the city does not know they

they have firearms

We should get rid of any laws that some people break?

That's the most retarded thing I've ever heard on this forum.

the law was targeted at the law abiding

criminals are not required nor can they to register their firearms

self incriminating

Nonsense.

Criminals don’t obey laws making car theft illegal.

By your ‘reasoning’ stealing a car shouldn’t be a crime.

If a criminal is found in possession of a stolen car or an illegal gun, he’ll be subject to criminal prosecution. That’s how laws and the justice system work.

 

[The Rabbi]

Isn't it amazing how many times people say that, and how they are always proven wrong?

There’s nothing in the OP citing a case where a citizen’s gun was ‘confiscated’ and a hearing conducted subsequently to determine if the taking was warranted, and if warranted what the just compensation would be in accordance with the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause.

Such a case would be part of the public record and available to the OP to document.

Absent a sample case as proof, no ‘confiscation’ has taken place.

What’s not amazing is the OP is once again wrong, and once again only succeeded in exhibiting his ignorance.

Jewish property in Nazi Germany was not confiscated either. There were laws passed, the takings were warranted under the law and there was "just" compensation given.
Didnt make it not confiscation.
If you forbid someone immediate possession of something, you are confiscating it.