Correction pshawhan1 - Those are people who, without judicial review, have been deprived of their United States Constitutional Right under the 2nd Amendment, simply because some quack wanted to cover his/her butt "just in case" an accident of some kind happened with one of those firearms.I think, based on support for this junk legislation, NY voters need be deprived of their right to vote, and that it should be done without judicial review.
@boconnel; I love the obligatory conflation of extremist evangelical religion and GUNS. If you believe in God, then you worship the NRA, you own guns, and you rabidly defend the "right" to own a gun. Good Christian = gun owner.
Pablo, more people are murdered by fists, hammers, and other blunt instruments than with guns. When do you propose banning them. And what about the War on Women. A gun is the great equalizer for a small woman facing a large male attacker even if he is unarmed.
They are outlawed, and all such weapons have been outlawed since the 1930's. On the other hand, here's a quote from a man who knows something about opposing a tyrannical government bend on disarming its populace so that they can't oppose the will of that tyrannical government."A free people ought not only be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of Independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." George Washington
comtut - you should also read the decision in Heller, which stated that the right to bear arms is an individual right, and not constrained by the preambulatory clause concerning militias.
pshawhan1, You are wrong. bb guns, slingshots without wrist supports and knives of any length and type other than switchblades are legal in New York State outside of New York City. New York City is like another country with laws that do not apply in the rest of the state. Unfortunately its residents are trying to impose those laws on all New Yorkers.
Perhaps you should read McDonald v. Chiago with regards to SCOTUS determination of 2A as an individual right, not a collective right tied to military service. Furthermore, "militia" is a relatively unorganized band of citizens, not an organized military force. "Militia", in 1791, was every able bodied male over 18.
.......The measure included an expanded ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, as well as a broader requirement for background checks, and tougher penalties for gun crimes.....Not from NY, but I don't see what the problem is with any of this. Most people nationwide want these sensible restrictions, which barely impact hunters and the average gun owner at all. And lets face it, these 45% of Upstaters who oppose the law were not likely to vote for Cuomo anyway, if they even vote. Democracy wins.
Wow, talk about the pot calling the kettle black. What's childish is when a person, in a condescending manner, comments on an issue that's clear they lack any understanding of. I'm for common sense gun laws. Background checks for all, jail for straw buyers and rules for locking up guns if you live with people who are mentally ill. I'm not for banning guns based on cosmetic reasons. But then again I don't believe the color of a persons skin makes them any more dangerous. Do you?
The basic problem with militia at that time, all over the world, is that they were famously IN-effective compared to regular army troops of any country, including ours. This was largely due to insufficient training and arms. No bayonets was a huge deficiency.And remember, our militia gave a good account for themselves at Lexington and Concord, but they LOST; same with Bunker Hill.There was a great deal written about the private ownership of guns prior to the adoption of the Constitution, but none of it made it into the Second Amendment. In fact the subject did not even come up for discussion; it was just assumed as being settled.It was the South, not the North which insisted on the 2A. The North was quite content with its militias and saw no conflict with the Constitution. The 2A was debated and negotiated at the Richmond Convention called to consider the ratification of the new Constitution. Since Article One provided that militia shall be under federal control, including armament, Patrick Henry strongly objected. The South was heavily dependent upon its armed militias to enforce slavery and could not risk Congress interfering in any way. Inserting the 2A into the Constitution prevents Congress from ever dis-arming or dis-banding Virginia's slave patrols. So Madison composed the 2A, and Virginia then ratified, along with several other Southern states.And that's all there was to it; nothing more.
Nice way to react to someone taking your rights away. Which one is next?
I don't and will not be voting for him as a result...
This is an excellent idea. The only thing we need to make it work is a law forcing home invaders to report the items they plan to bring to the homeowner 72 hours in advance of any break in. In fact, if we just had laws making crime illegal then we could outlaw guns all together. Oh wait...
@ chris stehling --You complain that this legislation "does not extend the sentences of one violent criminal already in prison."There is a good reason for that. Article 1, Section 9, clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution, limiting the authority of Congress, provides (in relevant part) that "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."This language means that it would be completely unconstitutional for Congress (or the States, which are subject to federal constitutional limits under the 14th Amendment) to enact any law that extended the sentence of any criminal already in prison.What you are complaining about is that this law doesn't violate the express language of the Constitution, the way you apparently want it to.
Wow, one reasonable gun owner. Thank you. I don't know what it is about owning guns, but the effect it seems to have on many people is the complete abandonment of basic logic. I hope that's just a vocal minority. I wish there were more people like you who might be able to talk sense into the them. Unfortunately, there are many powerful forces talking stupid into them. In particular, the NRA, the organization that thinks it would be a great idea if we armed every teacher. If the NRA ever gets any say in our education policy, I think we can kiss our kids, and this country goodbye. I do not understand why such levels of stupid has any weight in the public discourse, while magazine writers of many years get fired for pointing out that all Constitutional rights are regulated. The NRA and their ilk have clearly radicalized the debate; why are so few recognizing that?
comtut - did you have the same sense of outrage when the Warren court created a right of privacy out of whole cloth in order to pass Roe v Wade? Or when they extended the definition of interstate commerce to your local diner to prohibit discrimination there? SCOTUS has always read whatever parts of the constitution they want in order to accomplish their goals of social engineering, both on the left and on the right.
And runaway media coverage will seduce another weakminded person into another such massacre. Don't you agree that the lives of schoolchildren also trump the right of unscrupulous media companies to profit from sensationalism? We need press censorship to keep children safe. Or are you one of those fringe First Amendment extremists?
Since these are all weapons useful to - indeed, used by - millitias, they are specifically protected under Miller (1939).Aside from that, Mr. Reitter obviously knows nothing about firearms except the names of a few of them.
Good point! And why does anyone need a car with more than 100 horsepower? Or one that doesn't get at least 40 miles to the gallon? Let's get this taken care of immediately!