ruling on NYS's new gun laws

[jjb4900]

I just saw a quick story on my local news that reported an Apellate court has ruled that the new laws are constitutional, don't infringe on 2nd Amendmant rights and refused to block them....does anyone have any more info on this?

[josephmrtn]

WTF they dont infringe?!?! they are gonna tell us what underwear to wear next!!!

[NFA-ADK]

Pathetic...

[Deerthug]

Here is the Court's decision

http://decisions.courts.state.ny.us/ad3/Decisions/2013/516341.pdf

Edited July 3, 2013 by Deerthug

[jesse.james]

May need to take matters into our own hands

[noahmstone]

This court ruling doesn't say that the safe act is constitutional it. It says the the message of necessity was constitutional. Basically the court doesn't want to step on the toes of the governor so he can continue to use the message of necessity to force whatever he wants on us. It also states that the message of necessity wasn't really justified but it was up to the legislature to make that decision not the court. So basically the message of necessity is constitutional because the legislature let it happen, It shouldn't have been used but deal with it. Typical NYS

Edited July 4, 2013 by noahmstone

[Doc]

Andy is getting quite comfortable with the "message of necessity" clause. I was just reading in the paper where he used it again on some rather unexciting law which I can't remember right now. But anyway, it is beginning to look like he can (and will) thumb his nose at public comment periods on just about any law that he wants to cram through the system. So basically, he has been able to take public input and discussion right out of the legislative process. There is some really strange stuff slipping around the constitution that we are not always knowing about. Prior to this gun law, I never heard of this "message of necessity" nonsense. When did that get implemented and by who? And what is the supposed purpose of it?

[NFA-ADK]

SO much for checks and balance...

[noahmstone]

Andy is getting quite comfortable with the "message of necessity" clause. I was just reading in the paper where he used it again on some rather unexciting law which I can't remember right now. But anyway, it is beginning to look like he can (and will) thumb his nose at public comment periods on just about any law that he wants to cram through the system. So basically, he has been able to take public input and discussion right out of the legislative process. There is some really strange stuff slipping around the constitution that we are not always knowing about. Prior to this gun law, I never heard of this "message of necessity" nonsense. When did that get implemented and by who? And what is the supposed purpose of it?

The message of necessity is a clause in 3 day aging period. It has been in place since 1936. It was intended to be used only in true emergencies. Cuomo has used it less than some past governors. He just uses it to pass the most controversial bills that he knows that he is going to get the most public input on to force them through. He used it to pass the bill approving gay marriage.( I'm not saying I am for or against gay marriage but how was that an emergency?) He aslo used it to pass the safe act and a few other things. He doesn't always use the message of necessity but when he does you can be sure it is so he can push it through without any controversy or debate before it is passed.

[Mr VJP]

His message is telling me a revolt is necessary!

[Doc]

His message is telling me a revolt is necessary!

Good luck with that ... lol. Have you started organizing your headquarters and barricaded compound and staffing it with militia? When do military maneuvers begin?

[Doc]

The message of necessity is a clause in 3 day aging period. It has been in place since 1936. It was intended to be used only in true emergencies. Cuomo has used it less than some past governors. He just uses it to pass the most controversial bills that he knows that he is going to get the most public input on to force them through. He used it to pass the bill approving gay marriage.( I'm not saying I am for or against gay marriage but how was that an emergency?) He aslo used it to pass the safe act and a few other things. He doesn't always use the message of necessity but when he does you can be sure it is so he can push it through without any controversy or debate before it is passed.

I think if I were a legislator, that tactic would instantly signal my opposition vote, no matter which side of the aisle I was from. It's the best signal to flag the fact that some sort of sneaky, unpopular, issue is being steam-rolled through. That automatically means to me that more time is required to thoroughly read and understand the bill and to get as much public comment as possible.

[noahmstone]

The message of necessity is a clause in 3 day aging period. It has been in place since 1936. It was intended to be used only in true emergencies. Cuomo has used it less than some past governors. He just uses it to pass the most controversial bills that he knows that he is going to get the most public input on to force them through. He used it to pass the bill approving gay marriage.( I'm not saying I am for or against gay marriage but how was that an emergency?) He aslo used it to pass the safe act and a few other things. He doesn't always use the message of necessity but when he does you can be sure it is so he can push it through without any controversy or debate before it is passed.

I think if I were a legislator, that tactic would instantly signal my opposition vote, no matter which side of the aisle I was from. It's the best signal to flag the fact that some sort of sneaky, unpopular, issue is being steam-rolled through. That automatically means to me that more time is required to thoroughly read and understand the bill and to get as much public comment as possible.

I agree but this NYS they are more worried about I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine.

[jesse.james]

Good luck with that ... lol. Have you started organizing your headquarters and barricaded compound and staffing it with militia? When do military maneuvers begin?

you don't need a standing militia. These laws are pissing off our armed forces and law enforcement as well. Id imagine it wouldn't take a whole lot to light that powder keg.

[jjb4900]

And that is a problem that can be laid at the feet of the apathetic NYS voter. At some point we have to band together as "single-issue" voters that vote out every legislator that vote for pro gun control bills. The next elections are as good a time as any to start. Yes we are the minority, but it is hard to defeat a dedicated and unified minority. We have to re-ignite the anger over this law at a time when votes count. We have the voting record and that should make election decisions easy.

the only problem now, is no matter who gets voted in or out, I can't see any politician saying, "assault weapons and high capacity magazines for everyone!"...........I think the best we can hope for is to keep what we have and maybe sensible modifications to what has already been made law.

[Doc]

And that is a problem that can be laid at the feet of the apathetic NYS voter. At some point we have to band together as "single-issue" voters that vote out every legislator that vote for pro gun control bills. The next elections are as good a time as any to start. Yes we are the minority, but it is hard to defeat a dedicated and unified minority. We have to re-ignite the anger over this law at a time when votes count. We have the voting record and that should make election decisions easy.

[Doc]

the only problem now, is no matter who gets voted in or out, I can't see any politician saying, "assault weapons and high capacity magazines for everyone!"...........I think the best we can hope for is to keep what we have and maybe sensible modifications to what has already been made law.

It doesn't matter. Let me repeat that ..... "It doesn't matter". I don't care what they say. I only care how they vote. The point that will be made and must be made is that a vote for gun control has consequences to the legislator's career. It is a fear factor that has to be put back into the career path of politicians. They must be re-educated to the fact that they work for their supporters and must vote in accordance with the fact that they are our representatives. It is a message that has made the NRA the powerful voice of gun owners for all these years. Politicians feared our gun lobby, and that fear has to be put back in their minds if we are to keep this anti-gun steamroller off our backs. My suggestion is not really anything radical. It is simply making the vote work again to restore representative government. This is not a call to arms or any of that other wacky stuff. It is simply using the system as it was intended. Very simple ..... you want to vote anti-gun, you have a huge block of voters to contend with. You can use them as support or opposition ..... your choice. There is no politician that will risk any votes, not to mention an organized, dedicated, unified significant percentage of the voters in their district. The draw-back to all this ...... gun owner apathy. We have many that don't vote at all let alone voting as a single issue force. Can it be done? I think it can with enough anger and passion whipped up by the pro-gun organizations and we as individuals. How important is this issue to us? Maybe after the next election, we may find out. But I will say that those who do not vote against these known anti-gunners really should have nothing to say about any problems they encounter with gun issues.

 

By the way, I intend to publish that voting record of the NYS Safe Law as soon as I figure how to cut and paste an Excel spreadsheet  on this forum. I tried and so far the formatting on this forum is very unfriendly to spread sheets .... lol. I'm working on it.

[jjb4900]

It doesn't matter. Let me repeat that ..... "It doesn't matter". I don't care what they say. I only care how they vote. The point that will be made and must be made is that a vote for gun control has consequences to the legislator's career. It is a fear factor that has to be put back into the career path of politicians. They must be re-educated to the fact that they work for their supporters and must vote in accordance with the fact that they are our representatives. It is a message that has made the NRA the powerful voice of gun owners for all these years. Politicians feared our gun lobby, and that fear has to be put back in their minds if we are to keep this anti-gun steamroller off our backs. My suggestion is not really anything radical. It is simply making the vote work again to restore representative government. This is not a call to arms or any of that other wacky stuff. It is simply using the system as it was intended. Very simple ..... you want to vote anti-gun, you have a huge block of voters to contend with. You can use them as support or opposition ..... your choice. There is no politician that will risk any votes, not to mention an organized, dedicated, unified significant percentage of the voters in their district. The draw-back to all this ...... gun owner apathy. We have many that don't vote at all let alone voting as a single issue force. Can it be done? I think it can with enough anger and passion whipped up by the pro-gun organizations and we as individuals. How important is this issue to us? Maybe after the next election, we may find out. But I will say that those who do not vote against these known anti-gunners really should have nothing to say about any problems they encounter with gun issues.

 

By the way, I intend to publish that voting record of the NYS Safe Law as soon as I figure how to cut and paste an Excel spreadsheet  on this forum. I tried and so far the formatting on this forum is very unfriendly to spread sheets .... lol. I'm working on it.

now I got what you're saying..........I think that many think if they vote in the right people, they will have all this nonsense reversed, but I don't see that happening.

Edited July 4, 2013 by jjb4900

[Doc]

you don't need a standing militia. These laws are pissing off our armed forces and law enforcement as well. Id imagine it wouldn't take a whole lot to light that powder keg.

I personally do not know any military personnel that are contemplating mutiny or treason over the NYS gun law. And law enforcement people value their jobs and positions within the community too much to be sucked into any radical subversive activities. If anyone intends to take on the U.S. government, they had better be ready to organize their own little rebellion. And if this is a direction that you favor, you might contemplate what kind of mess you would have left over if any such activities were ever to become reality.

[Mr VJP]

Doc, when freedom is eliminated in America, what do men have to lose?  There is nothing more dangerous then a man with nothing to lose.  Cuomo is plucking our freedoms from us little by little.  Like taking feathers off a bird slowly.  At first it doesn't notice it.  Then one day it realizes it can no longer fly, but by then it is too late.

 

A civil revolt can very easily begin if enough people understand what is happening and decide to stand up and demand it stop.  I'm not talking about a shooting revolt.....yet.  That would start after the government decided to suppress a revolt with violence or unlawful incarceration.  This has happened many times in the past around the world.  Concord, Mass was an example in the US colonies.  It could happen very quickly too.  And with the way Leftists like Cuomo and Obama are trampling American Constitutional Rights, it may happen sooner than most people think.

 

A little foresight may save a lot of people in this country.  Those that are sleeping will be the first to go.

The government is counting on you laughing at folks who try to open your eyes.

[Doc]

Basically, we have no argument over the fact that our freedoms are being eroded, and that we need to be ever vigilant and encourage people to wake up and begin the process of getting our government under control. Our big difference is in the methods. I am one who would rather do things within the system. I am not ready to trash an entire system and turn our system into anarchy and armed rebellion. I am not ready to become one of the Tim McVeighs in this world running around with my fertilizer and diesel fuel. I still loathe those cowardly treasonous domestic terrorists. Sure there may come a day of necessary forceful rebellion, but I am not ready to rush that situation or start something that will surely put a final end to this country and render it ripe for foreign take-over or the implementation of a dictatorial system of government that will make what is going on today look like child's play.

[Mr VJP]

Doc, you seem to think we are doomed to accept the crap the current corrupt government forces down our throats, because the alternative would be worse.  I say the founding fathers would have been shooting by now.  I have a more optimistic attitude about the "change"  we could see in the future if Americans had the guts to say, "Enough is enough!"    Don't assume violence is what it takes to put a stop to the current oppression we are experiencing.  That's just an excuse for doing nothing and trying to convince others resistance is futile.

 

"n our time, many seem to think 'the Declaration' was penned to proclaim eternal verities about the human condition -- a poetic tribute to 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' -- as if it were a collection of fine words about high-minded ideals. No! It was a rebellion against bad governance, against political arrogance, against oppressive laws, against restriction, constraint, and imposition without representation. We call it 'the Declaration,' but that's not the object. It's the 'Independence,' stupid. The members of the Second Continental Congress did not expect to forfeit their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor for stating the obvious about the 'laws of nature and of nature's God.' Their necks ripened for the noose because they altered, abolished, and threw off the yoke of their government. They counted all as loss to obtain freedom; to be absolved of allegiance to their government, to dissolve all political connections between themselves and the state which they had always referred to as their own. 'The Declaration' offers exhaustive reasons for committing open treason, nonetheless, treason it was. Independence Day then is not a celebration of government, but a regular reminder ... of the necessity to reject corrupt, abusive government." --PJMedia's Scott Ott

[Doc]

Oh nobody is suggesting doing nothing. It's just the radical knee-jerk reaction that some have that makes them want to reach for their rifle every time a legislative vote doesn't go their way, that I find fault with. There are plenty of legal processes and actions within the system that people can do, and I believe that open armed insurrection is a very last resort. I don't think we are at that stage yet and I do believe that those who want to rush into that kind of solution prematurely should be heavily discouraged against taking those kinds of illegal activities. What we don't need is more terrorist crazies running around with bombs. We already have enough of those from foreign sources. We don't need to have them as home-grown entities.

 

I'm kind of reminded of the wackos in the Arab nations that simply are not happy unless they are carrying on some kind of Jihad. I don't want to see that kind of mentality growing here. They're nuts, and that doesn't mean that we have to emulate them. That mentality is for people who have  a very warped image of what oppression and injustice really are and who have some kind of weird love of violence running through their brain that they can't control.

[Mr VJP]

Agreed.  But I don't not believe that is what most American Patriots have in mind.  They are working within the system, but it is agonizingly slow.  Meanwhile many good people are being persecuted, they're lives ruined and their finances stolen.

 

How much of this will be tolerated before people realize how bad this government has become?  When they finally get so fed up, they call a statewide strike, or a national one, where no one cooperates with government oppression anymore, and out right challenge it's legal authority, how long before the government starts shooting citizens?

 

That will be the day people will have to fight back, or forget they ever enjoyed freedom in this land.  It's happened many times around the world throughout history and it can happen here.  Regardless of what many people believe.  Based upon what I see going on in this country today, I believe the time is closer than people think.

 

There is already massive distrust of government now, which is making the government nervous.  That makes it retaliate and crack down on dissent.  We are seeing that everyday.  We are on a very dangerous path right now.

 

http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/articles/13/DistrustingGovernment.htm

[sits in trees]

By sociological design there is little to no chance of an armed revolution in this country. Things like immigration used to dilute a pissed population, and highly paid law enforcement and well compensated military make it impossible for any group to rise up in the U.S.  On most hunting and shooting sites you will see this topic visited repeatedly and mainly discussed by white gun owners who are conservatives. But even this group has become so divided by issues and location it would be hard to ever get anything started.