Bang / Guns
See other Bang / Guns Articles
Title: Breaking: Shocking Gun Confiscation Begins in New York!
Source:
Conservative Daily
URL Source: http://conservative-daily.com/2015/ ... nfiscation-begins-in-new-york/
Published: Oct 30, 2015
Author: Joe Otto
Post Date: 2015-10-30 15:48:42 by Stoner
Keywords: None
Views: 11460
Comments: 54
Breaking: Shocking Gun Confiscation Begins in New York! Fellow Conservative, We’ve known this was coming. When New York State Legislators passed laws to allow municipalities to confiscate law-abiding citizens’ firearms, it was only a matter of time before they decided to exercise that power. On October 22, 2015, the Suffolk County Police Department (SCPD) called a member of a motorcycle club and informed him that his pistol permits were under review because of his alleged membership in the Pagans MC. For those of you who don’t know, the Pagans Motorcycle Club is what the FBI calls an “outlaw” motorcycle club. The FBI alleges that the club is involved in organized crime. When the SCPD found out that one of its county’s legal gun owners was a member in this club, they ordered him to come in for an “interview” and to bring his 10 legally owned and registered handguns with him. But they had no intention of interviewing him. When he arrived, the Police ordered him to surrender his firearms and pistol permit… all because he is a member of a group that the police don’t like. Now to be clear, this club member (who prefers to remain nameless) has a squeaky clean record. He has never been convicted of a crime. His motorcycle club membership not withstanding, he has done nothing to get put on the police department’s radar. But because of his association with a motorcycle club, something that is a First Amendment right, the police just confiscated his guns. Unbelievable… If this can happen somewhere in America, it can happen anywhere in America! You could be next. Tell Congress to put a stop to this practice and outlaw these illegal confiscations once and for all! Whatever the motorcycle club has been accused of is a separate issue. If police are allowed to just confiscate guns from people because they don’t like the groups they’ve joined, it’s easy to see how that can get completely out of control. A lot of liberals are pushing for the National Rifle Association to be labeled as a “terror group.” No, that’s not a joke. That was actually a headline in the New York Daily News earlier this month. Can you imagine if a police department confiscated your guns because they didn’t like your NRA membership? Or they didn’t like the gun club you belonged to? This is where it is heading. You no longer need to be convicted of a crime to have your guns taken away. You no longer need to be admitted to a mental hospital. In Obama’s America, hearsay is enough. Don’t we have rights anymore? Don’t we have the Bill of Rights? Whatever happened to freedom of speech? This man had his guns away not because he committed a crime, or was even suspected of committing a crime. His guns were confiscated because police didn’t like the motorcycle club he belonged to. If we let this slide then we’re all in danger! Do you see? This is the left’s end-game. Tell Congress to enforce the 2nd Amendment nationwide and put a stop to these unconstitutional confiscations! Time and time again, we have warned that registration always leads to confiscation. Here is proof of that. Without the registry, police would never have been able to target this man. Here is someone who jumped through all the hoops. He underwent a background check, bought his pistols legally, and then registered them with the state. He had no criminal record. I want you to think about all the clubs and organizations you belong to. Now imagine that your local police department started violating your constitutional rights because they didn’t like the club/organization. Picture them confiscating your guns, stopping you from voting, or arresting you for speaking your mind at a town hall meeting all because of your clubs and associations. When we allow injustice to slide against one of us, then it puts all of us at risk! When Obama met with police chiefs from across the country earlier this week, he pushed for the very universal registration scheme that made this injustice possible. At the time of the founding, only 3% of American colonists took up arms to fight against British tyranny. The other 97% either resisted passively, were too afraid to do anything, or remained loyal to the crown. I am calling on you to be part of that 3% now. Get loud and DEMAND that Congress put a stop to these gun confiscations once and for all! I cannot stress enough; you MUST FaxBlast your Congressman and Senators demanding that this injustice be stopped! Sincerely, Joe Otto Conservative Daily
Poster Comment: Registration is OK right?
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-13) not displayed.
.
.
.
#14. To: tpaine (#7)
Just the way nolu chan likes it. ---- Nolu is firmly convinced that govt can restrict/prohibit various aspects of our right to arms with impunity: --- As opposed to the way tpaine preaches the law, I state the real law in the real world. New York has imposed restrictions since before the Constitution. The Sullivan Act requiring a license is from 1911. The current and actual NY law disagrees with tpaine, and the SCPD enforce the actual law, not the law from the tpaine Court of the Imagination. The tpaine has fine argument except that the Westchester County Court decided otherwise, the U.S. District Court affirmed and provided summary judgment against it, the 2nd Circuit held the NY law was Constitutional and affirmed the lower courts, and the U.S. Supreme Court DENIED Cert. In the Matter of the Application of Alan N. Kachalsky, FILED AND ENTERED ON [10/8] 2008 DECISION & ORDER CACACE, J. This Court, in its capacity as handgun licensing officer for the County of Westchester (see Penal Law §265.00(10)) has been presented with the application of Alan N. Kachalsky, 47C Peck Avenue, Rye, New York, for an unrestricted full carry pistol permit. In accordance with the statutory mandate (see Penal Law §400.00(4)), the Westchester County Department of Public Safety has conducted an investigation of the applicant’s background. In order for the issuance of a license to “have and carry concealed [sic] without regard to employment or place of possession by any person,” the Court must find “proper cause exists for the issuance thereof.” Penal Law §400.00(2)(f). The Court, in exercising its broad discretion, finds “good cause” for denial of the subject application. Matter of Charles I. Anderson v. Joseph A. Mogavero, Jr. as County Court Judge of Ostego County, 116 AD2d 885. In support of his request for an unrestricted permit, the applicant has stated that his belief is that the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution entitles him to an unrestricted permit without further establishing “proper cause.” He goes on to cite the fact that we live in a world where “sporadic random violence might at any moment place one in a position where one needs to defend oneself or possibly others. He has not stated any facts which would demonstrate a need for self protection distinguishable from that of the general public. The Westchester County Department of Public Safety has forwarded a recommendation that his application be denied. The Court does not find that the applicant has submitted a persuasive argument justifying the issuance of a “full carry” license. The State has a substantial and legitimate interest and a grave responsibility for ensuring the safety of the general public. Licensing officers are vested with broad discretion in determining applications for an unrestricted pistol license, and are required to exercise their judgement on the basis of a total evaluation of relevant factors. See Fulco v. McGuire, 81 AD2d 509. Based upon all the facts and circumstances of this application, it is my opinion that proper cause does not exist for the issuance of an unrestricted “full carry” pistol license to be issued to Alan N. Kachalsky. Accordingly, the application for an unrestricted, full carry pistol permit by Alan N. Kachalsky is denied. The foregoing constitutes the decision and order of this Court. Dated: White Plains, New York /s/ Susan Cacace HON. SUSAN CACACE Kachalsky v Cacace, SDNY No. 10-cv-5413 (CS) was decided 2 Sep 2011. The CONCLUSION was: For the reasons stated above, I hereby DENY the State Defendants’ and the County’s Motions to Dismiss, DENY Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment, and GRANT the State Defendants’ Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. Although the County has not crossmoved for summary judgment, I hereby GRANT it summary judgment sua sponte. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to terminate the pending motions, (Docs. 30, 33, 39, 42), and close the case. SO ORDERED. Dated: August 9/2, 2011 /s/ Cathy Seibel Kachalsky et al v Cty of Westchester et al, 2nd Cir 11-3642 (27 Nov 2012) affirmed NY permit law that limited concealed carry to those with proper cause or in a specified employment category. Open carry is prohibited. Full opinion provided at #6. At 47: http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/kachalsky-v-cacace/ Kachalsky was appealed to SCOTUS where cert was DENIED. http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/kachalsky_cert_petition.pdf 1. Does the Second Amendment secure a right to carry handguns for self-defense outside the home? 2. Do state officials violate the Second Amendment by denying handgun carry licenses to responsible, law-abiding adults for lack of “proper cause” to bear arms for self-defense? The decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, reprinted in the Appendix (App.) at 1, is published at 701 F.3d 81. The decision of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, reprinted at App. 45, is published at 817 F. Supp. 2d 235.
I stand corrected. It was the Sullivan Act I was thinking of,and I was thinking it was in the 30's. BTW,possession without a license is the same as not allowing possession if you don't give out any licenses. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
The Kachalsky case was adversely decided at the Westchester County Court (2008), the U.S. District Court affirmed and provided summary judgment against it (2011), the 2nd Circuit held the NY law was Constitutional and affirmed the lower courts (2012), and the U.S. Supreme Court DENIED Cert (2013). The complete chain of court decisions indicates otherwise.
The Sullivan Act is mostly famous for its application against the gangsters in the 30s. To clarify, Kachalsky, 2nd Cir at 7, "New York maintains a general prohibition on possession of 'firearms' absent a license. See N.Y. Penal Law §§ 265.01-265.04, 265.20(a)(3)."
Maybe that would shut up gun grabbers like roscoe/misterwhite. - But I doubt it. Congress cannot legislatively overrule the Courts on constitutional interpretation. The State law has been upheld as constitutional and SCOTUS denied cert.
1. Does the Second Amendment secure a right to carry handguns for self-defense outside the home? Yes. 2. Do state officials violate the Second Amendment by denying handgun carry licenses to responsible, law-abiding adults for lack of “proper cause” to bear arms for self-defense? Again - yes the Constitution is violated whenever the right to bear arms is infringed. Citizens do not need to ask for government "permission" to exercise their second amendment rights, contrary to your long winded lawyerese bullshit. You and the other usual suspects will never get that. In a Cop Culture, the Bill of Rights Doesn’t Amount to Much Kachalsky, 2nd Cir. at 47:
You and the other usual suspects will never get that. You and those who listen to you will never understand that what you say can get you arrested in NY and the existing court precedent goes right up to SCOTUS who denied cert.
The FBI alleges that the club is involved in organized crime. That is not what the FBI alleges, but how they define an Outlaw Gang. The Court found the Pagans to be a criminal enterprise. https://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/national-gang-report-2013 At 7: Outlaw Motorcycle Gangs (OMGs) - OMGs are organizations whose members use their motorcycle clubs as conduits for criminal enterprises. OMGs are highly structured criminal organizations whose members engage in criminal activities such as violent crime, weapons trafficking, and drug trafficking. There are more than 300 active OMGs within the United States, ranging in size from single chapters with five or six members to hundreds of chapters with thousands of members worldwide. http://openjurist.org/800/f2d/448/united-states-v-m-tinsley UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, No. 85-5124. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Argued July 18, 1986. John H. Kennett, Jr., Roanoke, Va., for appellant. Thomas J. Bondurant, Jr., Asst. U.S. Atty. (John P. Alderman, U.S. Atty., Roanoke, Va., on brief), for appellee. Before WIDENER, PHILLIPS and CHAPMAN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Donald M. Tinsley was one of seven members of the Pagan Motorcycle Club indicted for racketeering, conducting a continuing criminal enterprise, and various drug and firearms charges. Tinsley was specifically charged with racketeering conspiracy in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1962(d) (1982), racketeering in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1962(c) (1982), and facilitating the distribution of methamphetamine by the use of a communications facility in violation of 21 U.S.C. Sec. 843(b) (1982). Prior to trial, all of Tinsley's codefendants entered pleas of guilty to one or more of the counts in the indictment. Following a jury trial, Tinsley was convicted of racketeering conspiracy and racketeering, but he was acquitted under Count 9 of the indictment facilitating the distribution of methamphetamine by the use of a communications facility. He appeals, claiming (1) that the delay between his first appearance before a judicial officer and the date of his trial was more than seventy days and violated the Speedy Trial Act, specifically 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3161(c) (1982); (2) that the evidence was insufficient to establish racketeering activity; and (3) that his acquittal under Count 9 eliminated the necessary predicate act to convict him of the racketeering offenses. Finding no merit in these exceptions, we affirm. [...]
Bwah ha ha ha ha ha. Unless you have a few million in hand, Congress doesn't care about you.
Time will tell. The clear denial of the Second Amendment is the precursor of and about a fascist government; court decisions are overturned all the tyme, too.
I pledge allegiance to the Flag
You do realize that this was the system implemented by the Founding Fathers, don't you?
He's been told a thousand times. Willful ignorance.
So, YOU are THE ROSCOE ... there is no way you would otherwise KNOW what I have been told about anything. You fuckin' fascist.
Kinda true at this point ...
I pledge allegiance to the Flag Of the United States of America And to the One nation divided by propaganda dedicated to irrational destructive neurotic interests and squandered by soft immature self-indulgent people
The above is quoted from Art III, Sec 2, paragraph 2.. Congress could help by holding hearings to find out exactly WHY these State legislators/judges think they can ignore our Constitutions BOR's. Maybe that would shut up gun grabbers like Nolu Chan, - roscoe/misterwhite. - But I doubt it. So what? SCOTUS has reversed itself many times on such matters, and in any case, scotus opinions are just OPINIONS, not law, and can be/will be challenged.
Just the way nolu chan likes it. ---- Nolu is firmly convinced that govt can restrict/prohibit various aspects of our right to arms with impunity: --- I state/cite the supreme law of the US CONSTITUTION. And thousands of constitutional lawyers also 'preach' those clear words. --- Agreed, thousands of pettifogging lawyers also preach against the 2nd Amendment, cheered on by simps like Nolu Chan, roscoe, and misterwhite.. Your feeble mind imagines my 'court'. --- Granted, there are a few States that are still overly regulating our rights to arms.. Why you creeps support those efforts is a question best left to mental health experts.
Living off of federal welfare payments
+10 The real questions: (1) how did their minds get "wired" into becoming cheerleaders for a derilict government; (2) how can their minds be repaired about individual responsibility, liberty, freedom and dignity?
Wow! You mean the First Amendment is dead there as well? In a Cop Culture, the Bill of Rights Doesn’t Amount to Much In this instance, the provision in law has been there for over a century, but hope springs eternal and the second century of challenges may prove more successful than the first. Perhaps it should have been struck down at first instance, but the fact is that it wasn't. As far as the instant article is concerned, this is the prevailing law cited by the SCPD.
Solution: move to Texas.
"For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly."---Romans 5:6
Maybe that would shut up gun grabbers like Nolu Chan, - roscoe/misterwhite. - But I doubt it. I did not grab anyone's gun, and I did not pass the NY state laws, and I did not sit at any of the courts that have upheld the NY state law for more than a century. I did not even express personal agreement with the law, but it has stood for over a century, and I do not make believe it is not there. The Federal congress does not sit in review of State legislation. If such a question were to be posed, the State authorities could just cite the court decisions to demonstrate the basis of the question is without legal merit. They must comply with the Federal courts. Would you like to have them try to call the Federal judges before Congress? I am sure they will politely tell the Legislature to go commit a physically impossible act. As I said above, they could hold hearings... And, as quoted, Congress has the power to regulate the appellate powers of SCOTUS... Congress cannot retroactively do anything about constitutional interpretations already rendered. SCOTUS has already declined to hear a case directly on point. I should think you would want SCOTUS to take a challenge case and overrule the 2nd Circuit. So what? SCOTUS has reversed itself many times on such matters, and in any case, scotus opinions are just OPINIONS, not law, and can be/will be challenged. A denied a cert is final and not subject to reversal. The case is closed. But they could take a new case challenging the law (if you don't remove their jurisdiction). This law has only withstood challenge for a little over a century, and this second century of litigation may do better.
Why you creeps support those efforts is a question best left to mental health experts. Why some mentally deficient minds imagine a state of law that does not exist, and preach it as the effective, operational law, is best left to tpaine's court of the imagination to explain. Why you invent arguments about who supports the court holding directly on point is readily explainable... you have no ability to make the chain of court decisions go away so you must create a bullshit diversion. I documented the effective law. I did not offer a personal opinion about. The provision of law in question is over a century old.
Wow! You mean the First Amendment is dead there as well? No you are free to make really stupid statements about the law of NY and elsewhere. If you, or others, choose to act in reliance upon your really stupid legal opinions, you may get arrested, jailed, or lose ten guns. LCOL Terry Lakin, an Army doctor, listened to birther blather that all of Obama's orders were unlawful and he did not have to obey them, so he declined to deploy unless he saw President Obama's birth certificate. He was court-martialed, dismissed from the service and sentenced to six months. Went he got back to Kansas, the state board declined to grant him a license to practice medicine because Lakin "potentially jeopardized the health, safety and welfare of the military troops for which applicant was employed to provide medical care." He did have his fifteen minutes of fame on youtube and birther websites.
Among others. In NY, if you have a concealed carry permit, do not join a motorcycle club which has been designated as a criminal enterprise.
I would be interested to see how the state determined gang membership. Tattoos? Own admission? Membership card?:)
"For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly."---Romans 5:6
He's worthless. Block him.
--- "the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make." The above is quoted from Art III, Sec 2, paragraph 2.. As I said above, they could hold hearings... And, as quoted, Congress has the power to regulate the appellate powers of SCOTUS... Nor can the SCOTUS do anything about enforcing unconstitutional 'interpretations'. Why don't you support such a challenge? Could it be because you support State gun control? ----- YOU BETCHA.. So what? SCOTUS has reversed itself many times on such matters, and in any case, scotus opinions are just OPINIONS, not law, and can be/will be challenged. The ISSUE (of gun control) is not closed, although you wish it would be, for some irrational reason. Yep, unconstitutional State gun 'laws' have been around since the founding. One wonders why creeps, like you, are always around to support them. What's in it for you?
Granted, there are a few States that are still overly regulating our rights to arms.. Why you creeps support those efforts is a question best left to mental health experts. Our constitution exists. Our 2nd Amendment is effective operational law, despite State and federal infringements supported by creeps like you. Weird comment, -- considering that you are defending that unconstitutional chain of decisions at issue. -- Now that's BS... You've been defending the 'effective law,' since your first post. Age doesn't make it right.
Numbnuts wants each State to make these decisions UNLESS he doesn't like their decision. Then he wants the federal government to step in and take over ... UNLESS he doesn't like their decision. Then he wants each State to make the decision unless ... You'll note that nowhere does the U.S. Constitution play a role.
Doesn't work that way. You see -- in his Bizarro world -- if you cite a fact, that means you agree with what the fact is ABOUT, not what the fact IS.
"Wants what he wants when he wants it - and thinks that constitutes a natural law." --Robert Heinlein
Isn't naturally on first base?
You've been defending the 'effective law,' since your first post. Stupid comment, seeing that our Constitution works in exactly this way. -- States have the power to write criminal law regarding the keeping and bearing of arms,--- as long as these laws do NOT infringe on our individual right to do so. Infringements by Fed, State or local govts are to be dealt with by the federal court system, and if the infringements persist, can be dealt with by the people themselves. Why you three are unable to understand our constitutional system is an question best left to mental health professionals.
I guess he rides around with a Pagans jacket on. And they probably asked him just for the record. It appears he possessed the weapons lawfully in his home. He took them to the station. His concealed carry permit was revoked. Open carry is prohibited by law. I guess he couldn't leave the station with his guns. Mr. Wizard could have consulted an attorney or left his legally possessed guns at home.
Bullshit does not change it or make it any less the effective law. Fantasies from the tpaine Court of the Imagination are not law.
Yes, it is from the tpaine Court of the Imagination. It's a fantasy world.
You've been defending the 'effective law,' since your first post. Stupid comment, seeing that our Constitution works in exactly this way. -- States have the power to write criminal law regarding the keeping and bearing of arms,--- as long as these laws do NOT infringe on our individual right to do so. Infringements by Fed, State or local govts are to be dealt with by the federal court system, and if the infringements persist, can be dealt with by the people themselves. Why you three are unable to understand our constitutional system is an question best left to mental health professionals.
Restrictions started in 1785. Concealed carry was prohibited in 1881. By the Sullivan Act of 1911, NY prohibited possession without a license.
COUNTY COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER
for a pistol permit pursuant to Penal Law Section 400.00
WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK
Index No.: 3/2008
October [8], 2008
County Court Judge III. CONCLUSION
White Plains, New York
CATHY SEIBEL, U.S.D.J. 9 To be sure, “the enshrinement of constitutional rights
10 necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table.”
11 Heller, 554 U.S. at 636. But there is also a “general
12 reticence to invalidate the acts of [our] elected leaders.”
13 Nat’l Fed’n of Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius, 132 S. Ct. 2566,
14 2579 (2012). “‘Proper respect for a coordinate branch of
15 government’ requires that we strike down [legislation] only
16 if ‘the lack of constitutional authority to pass [the] act
17 in question is clearly demonstrated.’” Id. (quoting United
18 States v. Harris, 106 U.S. 629, 635 (1883)). Our review of
19 the history and tradition of firearm regulation does not
20 “clearly demonstrate[]” that limiting handgun possession in
21 public to those who show a special need for self-protection
22 is inconsistent with the Second Amendment. Id. QUESTIONS PRESENTED
#15. To: nolu chan (#6)
By the Sullivan Act of 1911, NY prohibited possession without a license.
#16. To: buckeroo, Stoner, misterwhite (#8)
The USSC shall reign in, pal.
#17. To: sneakypete (#15)
I stand corrected. It was the Sullivan Act I was thinking of,and I was thinking it was in the 30's.
#18. To: tpaine, misterwhite (#13)
Congress could help by holding hearings to find out exactly WHY these State legislators/judges think they can ignore our Constitutions BOR's.
#19. To: nolu chan (#14)
(Edited)
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#20. To: buckeroo, Roscoe (#12)
You don't understand that the US Bill of Rights apply to the states besides the federal government(s).
9 To be sure, “the enshrinement of constitutional rights
10 necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table.”
11 Heller, 554 U.S. at 636. But there is also a “general
12 reticence to invalidate the acts of [our] elected leaders.”
13 Nat’l Fed’n of Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius, 132 S. Ct. 2566,
14 2579 (2012). “‘Proper respect for a coordinate branch of
15 government’ requires that we strike down [legislation] only
16 if ‘the lack of constitutional authority to pass [the] act
17 in question is clearly demonstrated.’” Id. (quoting United
18 States v. Harris, 106 U.S. 629, 635 (1883)). Our review of
19 the history and tradition of firearm regulation does not
20 “clearly demonstrate[]” that limiting handgun possession in
21 public to those who show a special need for self-protection
22 is inconsistent with the Second Amendment. Id.
#21. To: Deckard (#19)
Citizens do not need to ask for government "permission" to exercise their second amendment rights, contrary to your long winded lawyerese bullshit.
#22. To: Stoner (#0)
On October 22, 2015, the Suffolk County Police Department (SCPD) called a member of a motorcycle club and informed him that his pistol permits were under review because of his alleged membership in the Pagans MC. For those of you who don’t know, the Pagans Motorcycle Club is what the FBI calls an “outlaw” motorcycle club.
Definitions
800 F.2d 448
v.
Donald M. TINSLEY, a/k/a "Wiseman," SS# mjn-bt-rfwy Appellant.
Decided Sept. 16, 1986.
#23. To: Stoner (#0)
You could be next. Tell Congress to put a stop to this practice and outlaw these illegal confiscations once and for all!
#24. To: nolu chan (#16)
#25. To: Roscoe (#11)
"That such a division even exists infuriates them."
Of the United States of America
And to the Republic Federal Government for which it stands ...
#26. To: buckeroo (#8)
"This is the power of state government unbrideled by the US Constitution"
#27. To: misterwhite (#26)
You do realize that this was the system implemented by the Founding Fathers, don't you?
#28. To: Roscoe (#27)
(Edited)
He's [buckeroo] been told a thousand times.
#29. To: misterwhite (#25)
I pledge allegiance to the Flag
Of the United States of America
And to the Republic Federal Government for which it stands ...
#30. To: Roscoe (#29)
(Edited)
Republic Federal Government for which it stands
#31. To: nolu chan (#18)
(Edited)
--- "In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make."
Congress cannot legislatively overrule the Courts on constitutional interpretation.
As I said above, they could hold hearings... And, as quoted, Congress has the power to regulate the appellate powers of SCOTUS... The State law has been upheld as constitutional and SCOTUS denied cert.
#32. To: nolu chan, roscoe, misterwhite, Y'ALL (#14)
Restrictions started in 1785. Concealed carry was prohibited in 1881. By the Sullivan Act of 1911, NY prohibited possession without a license.
As opposed to the way tpaine preaches the law, I state the real law in the real world.
New York has imposed restrictions since before the Constitution. The Sullivan Act requiring a license is from 1911. The current and actual NY law disagrees with tpaine, and the SCPD enforce the actual law, not the law from the tpaine Court of the Imagination.
#33. To: rlk (#30)
One nation divided by propaganda dedicated to irrational destructive neurotic interests and squandered by soft immature self-indulgent people
#34. To: tpaine, nolu chan, roscoe, misterwhite (#32)
Why you creeps support those efforts is a question best left to mental health experts.
#35. To: nolu chan (#21)
You and those who listen to you will never understand that what you say can get you arrested in NY
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#36. To: buckeroo (#24)
Time will tell. The clear denial of the Second Amendment is the precursor of and about a fascist government; court decisions are overturned all the tyme, too.
13 In 1913, the Sullivan Law was amended to impose a
14 statewide standard for the issuance of licenses to carry
15 firearms in public. 1913 Laws of N.Y., ch. 608, at 1627-30.
16 To obtain a license to carry a concealed pistol or revolver
17 the applicant was required to demonstrate “good moral
18 character, and that proper cause exists for the issuance [of
19 the license].” Id. at 1629. One hundred years later, the
20 proper cause requirement remains a feature of New York’s
21 statutory regime.
#37. To: nolu chan (#36)
#38. To: tpaine (#31)
Congress could help by holding hearings to find out exactly WHY these State legislators/judges think they can ignore our Constitutions BOR's.
Congress cannot legislatively overrule the Courts on constitutional interpretation.
The State law has been upheld as constitutional and SCOTUS denied cert.
#39. To: tpaine, roscoe, misterwhite (#32)
Your feeble mind imagines my 'court'. --- Granted, there are a few States that are still overly regulating our rights to arms..
#40. To: Deckard (#35)
You and those who listen to you will never understand that what you say can get you arrested in NY
#41. To: redleghunter (#37)
Solution: move to Texas.
#42. To: nolu chan (#41)
#43. To: nolu chan (#39)
#44. To: nolu chan, Y'ALL (#38)
Congress cannot legislatively overrule the Courts on constitutional interpretation.
Congress cannot retroactively do anything about constitutional interpretations already rendered.
SCOTUS has already declined to hear a case directly on point. I should think you would want SCOTUS to take a challenge case and overrule the 2nd Circuit.
The State law has been upheld as constitutional and SCOTUS denied cert.
A denied a cert is final and not subject to reversal. The case is closed.
But they could take a new case challenging the law (if you don't remove their jurisdiction). This law has only withstood challenge for a little over a century, and this second century of litigation may do better.
#45. To: nolu chan, Y'ALL (#39)
Why some mentally deficient minds imagine a state of law that does not exist, - -
-- and preach it as the effective, operational law, is best left to tpaine's court of the imagination to explain.
Why you invent arguments about who supports the court holding directly on point is readily explainable... you have no ability to make the chain of court decisions go away so you must create a bullshit diversion.
I documented the effective law. I did not offer a personal opinion about.
The provision of law in question is over a century old.
#46. To: nolu chan (#38)
"The Federal congress does not sit in review of State legislation."
#47. To: nolu chan (#39)
"I documented the effective law. I did not offer a personal opinion about."
#48. To: misterwhite (#46)
Then he wants the federal government to step in and take over ... UNLESS he doesn't like their decision.
#49. To: Roscoe (#48)
"that constitutes a natural law"
#50. To: misterwhite, roscoe, nolu chan, Y'ALL (#46)
nolu --- I documented the effective law. I did not offer a personal opinion about.
misterwhite --- (Tpaine) wants each State to make these decisions UNLESS he doesn't like their decision. Then he wants the federal government to step in and take over ... UNLESS he doesn't like their decision. Then he wants each State to make the decision unless ... ----- You'll note that nowhere does the U.S. Constitution play a role.
#51. To: redleghunter (#42)
I would be interested to see how the state determined gang membership. Tattoos? Own admission? Membership card?:)
#52. To: tpaine (#45)
Age doesn't make it right.
#53. To: misterwhite (#46)
You'll note that nowhere does the U.S. Constitution play a role.
#54. To: nolu chan, misterwhite, Roscoe, Y'ALL (#53)
nolu --- I documented the effective law. I did not offer a personal opinion about.
misterwhite --- (Tpaine) wants each State to make these decisions UNLESS he doesn't like their decision. Then he wants the federal government to step in and take over ... UNLESS he doesn't like their decision. Then he wants each State to make the decision unless ... ----- You'll note that nowhere does the U.S. Constitution play a role.
nolu --- Yes, it is from the tpaine Court of the Imagination. It's a fantasy world.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]