Sign in to follow this  
Guest One of Five

Oh Looky - NY Sheriffs Association responds to Cuomo's gun laws.

Recommended Posts

On 1/22/2019 at 9:18 PM, Fakenews said:

Hey dickhead this is another gun thread that you bumped from over an month ago so you could talk about dogballs. You are a sick sick person.

Even worse you a quoting your self from over a year ago.

SAD!

This is the third time in the modern era that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear a second amendment case.

The case is about the NY laws that are the topic of this thread.

I can't help it that no one else is interested in how our rights fare in the courts. If someone else had brought up the case, I would have quoted him.

TeamD gun bans and confiscation programs affect the lives of gun owners and so do Supreme Court decisions on the topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/22/2019 at 9:31 PM, Ishmael said:

If there was a Gun Anarchy, we wouldn't see some people at all in the sane threads.

Take it to Cruising Anarchy again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Much wailing and gnashing of teeth over at Slate in fear of the demise of the dream of indoor militias.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/01/supreme-court-new-york-gun-case-heller.html

Quote

 

...on Tuesday, the court agreed to review a New York City law that limits gun owners’ ability to transport their guns outside the home. And it appears quite likely that the new conservative majority will, for the very first time, extend the Second Amendment beyond the front door and out into the streets, unleashing lower courts to strike down long-standing restrictions on the public carrying of firearms.

...

The case thus marks an effort to inch the Supreme Court toward establishing a right to public carry without forcing the justices to tear down hundreds of laws in a single, sweeping ruling. For a decade, gun advocates have been stymied by the language in Heller and McDonald expressly limiting the Second Amendment to firearms “in the home.” The conservative justices, however, will probably use New York State Rifle to blur that line. If Americans have a constitutional right to take their guns to and from a firing range of their choice, after all, why shouldn’t they be allowed to transport them while traveling elsewhere? If the Constitution safeguards their ability to bring a firearm to and from their second home, why shouldn’t it also protect their right to carry a gun while running errands or visiting friends?

There are good answers to these questions....

 

I can think of a couple:

1. Forcing gun owners to leave their guns in the city punishes them for voting wrong.

2. Delusional hoplophobes believe such interference with target shooters has something to do with crime.

3. It's gun control ALL gun control is common sense gun control by definition. Duh. (The duh is important there.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/24/2019 at 5:30 AM, Contumacious Tom said:

The Cert Petition
 

Quote

 

The question presented is:

Whether the City’s ban on transporting a licensed, locked, and unloaded handgun to a home or shooting range outside city limits is consistent with the Second Amendment, the Commerce Clause, and the constitutional right to travel.

 

 

I wondered what a local NY'er might think about the common sense of mandating that guns be left at home when leaving city limits.
 

Quote

 

...

Instead of fighting to save American lives, politicians bend over backwards to protect the billionaire-backed gun lobby and propose measures that would actually increase gun sales, such as the incredulous proposal to arm teachers.
 

Alexandria knows that it doesn’t have to be this way. Even in the United States, cities and states with strong gun laws have managed to cut gun violence significantly without running afoul of the Second Amendment. Thanks in part to New York City’s tough gun laws, gun crimes here are at historic lows. But New York – and the rest of the country – has the potential to be much safer. Alexandria believes that supporting common-sense gun legislation is necessary for any politician who claims to care about the lives of constituents. She understands that gun control can save lives and make communities and schools safer.

 

Oh. Not quite how I use "incredulous" but, it's a tough law that makes us safer without running afoul of the second amendment. Common sense, in other words, just like any gun control.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 posts in a row talking to yourself about dogballs.

Your mental health is rapidly deteriorating.

Red Flag?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Fakenews said:

4 posts in a row talking to yourself about dogballs.

Your mental health is rapidly deteriorating.

Red Flag?

It is weird that we don't have any New Yorkers who wish to speak up for their common sense gun control laws in light of my obviously insane attack.

Frenchie? Isn't Brooklyn part of the city?

And Sean? Sag Harbor is Lon Gisland, right?

hermetic? You're from around there too, right?

My prediction: during oral arguments, at least one Justice, probably Roberts, will make the whole room laugh at your gun control laws. That's how much common sense they really make.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/29/2019 at 4:44 AM, Contumacious Tom said:

My prediction: during oral arguments, at least one Justice, probably Roberts, will make the whole room laugh at your gun control laws. That's how much common sense they really make.

Fair warning, FakeNewb: there's a pretty good chance I'll return to this thread to discuss the oral arguments when they occur. Try not to be too triggered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's discussion of when the Supreme Court will hear the NYSRPA case. It will be April or October, most likely.

The timing is considered relevant because of Justice Ginsburg's health. Some gun control supporters seem to want her involved.

I think they should be careful what they wish for. She's not stupid at all and won't buy the stupid argument being made. When an old lady who knows she's dying makes the room laugh at you, it's likely to be harsh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎1‎/‎29‎/‎2019 at 4:44 AM, Contumacious Tom said:

It is weird that we don't have any New Yorkers who wish to speak up for their common sense gun control laws in light of my obviously insane attack.

Frenchie? Isn't Brooklyn part of the city?

And Sean? Sag Harbor is Lon Gisland, right?

hermetic? You're from around there too, right?

My prediction: during oral arguments, at least one Justice, probably Roberts, will make the whole room laugh at your gun control laws. That's how much common sense they really make.

i don't have any guns registered in new york

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, hermetic said:

i don't have any guns registered in new york

And I don't have any land along the US/Mexican border but am still interested in how the law treats those who do.

Lots of men are interested in the subject of abortion for some reason.

Whether you're directly affected by the actions of your state government or not,
 

Quote

 

The question presented is:

Whether the City’s ban on transporting a licensed, locked, and unloaded handgun to a home or shooting range outside city limits is consistent with the Second Amendment, the Commerce Clause, and the constitutional right to travel.

 

That's not an interesting question to you?

OK, it is to the Supreme Court and to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I kinds stopped being real interested in stupid ny laws a couple decades ago.  I pay property taxes there, but am trying to avoid the city like the plaque

the "transport" law is one of those stupid ones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, hermetic said:

I kinds stopped being real interested in stupid ny laws a couple decades ago.  I pay property taxes there, but am trying to avoid the city like the plaque

the "transport" law is one of those stupid ones

Well, thanks for your thoughts. Not exactly helpful in my quest for a NY'er with whom to discuss the common sense transport laws.

(They're gun laws, so "common sense" by definition.)

I'll keep looking

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Fakenews said:

Sigh...

That's what the San Fran Chronicle says too.

Quote

 

...

After nearly a decade of silence on the topic, the U.S. Supreme Court is poised to rule on a gun control case with the only doubt being how far the new conservative majority will go in widening Second Amendment gun rights.

It’s an instance of opposite coasts and opposite approaches. California may be the toughest gun control state in the country with a political lineup ready to go even further. The high court, which sensed it didn’t have the votes for a change-making decision until the arrival of Justice Brett Kavanaugh, is ready to go the other way.

 

Except that the Supreme Court hasn't been silent all that long and Caetano was a change-making decision.

And except that grabbers are very much the same on both coasts.

 

Quote

 

Before the court is an obscure-sounding case from New York City. On appeal is a challenge to a law that limits gun owners to taking their firearms to ranges in the five boroughs only. Transporting the weapons outside the city is restricted for safety reasons, a justification upheld by lower courts.

Control groups are worried, predicting a possible ruling to allow open and concealed carrying of weapons without restrictions.

The last major high court case in 2010 guaranteed the right to “possess a handgun in the home for the purpose of self-defense.’’ It left in place some gun restrictions, though.

The pending New York case could widen this stance, saying New York gun owners are free to take their guns anywhere, a ruling that would please pistol-packing gun rights groups.

 

PANIC! For the first time ever, the Court will endorse a right that is without restrictions. This is because grabbers view not enough gun control as the same as "without restrictions."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Buy your gun at a flea market in the wild, wild south.  Many then import them to New York at a profit.  Illegally.  You can buy a gun on the streets of the ATL for less than $10.  Do you really think that is a good thing for the health of our society?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, hasher said:

Buy your gun at a flea market in the wild, wild south.  Many then import them to New York at a profit.  Illegally.  You can buy a gun on the streets of the ATL for less than $10.  Do you really think that is a good thing for the health of our society?  

NY'ers violating NY law isn't really an example of the wild south, is it?

I don't believe I'd fire a gun for which I paid less than $10, if ever I encountered such a thing. But one of my rifles was originally purchased by my brother for $20 and I fail to see the problems it has created.

Here's a question for you (and SCOTUS):
 

Quote

 

The question presented is:

Whether the City’s ban on transporting a licensed, locked, and unloaded handgun to a home or shooting range outside city limits is consistent with the Second Amendment, the Commerce Clause, and the constitutional right to travel.

 

Do you think that outlawing any shooting except at your local range is necessary for the health of our society?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Contumacious Tom said:

NY'ers violating NY laws isn't really an example of the wild south, is it?

I don't believe I'd fire a gun for which I paid less than $10, if ever I encountered such a thing. But one of my rifles was originally purchased by my brother for $20 and I fail to see the problems it has created.

Here's a question for you (and SCOTUS):
 

Do you thing that outlawing any shooting except at your local range is necessary for the health of our society?

I don't think it would harm our society in any way.  I do believe it might be the single best thing we could do.  If you are angry with me (hypothetical) I'd rather you challenge me with your fists.  Loser buys the next beer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, hasher said:
6 minutes ago, Contumacious Tom said:

Do you think that outlawing any shooting except at your local range is necessary for the health of our society?

I don't think it would harm our society in any way.  I do believe it might be the single best thing we could do.

Perhaps you should read the amicus briefs describing the harms to the target shooting and hunting communities.

I asked whether it was necessary. The "best thing" goes a bit beyond that. So why would it be so great?

5 minutes ago, hasher said:

If you are angry with me (hypothetical) I'd rather you challenge me with your fists.  Loser buys the next beer.

I have no personal quarrel with you and have observed that people who drink beer and fight tend to lead to "mass shootings" almost as often as our stupid drug war. I was last in a fight decades ago and drink a few times a year, mostly when wishes come true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Contumacious Tom said:

Perhaps you should read the amicus briefs describing the harms to the target shooting and hunting communities.

I asked whether it was necessary. The "best thing" goes a bit beyond that. So why would it be so great?

I have no personal quarrel with you and have observed that people who drink beer and fight tend to lead to "mass shootings" almost as often as our stupid drug war. I was last in a fight decades ago and drink a few times a year, mostly when wishes come true.

I grew up in a rural area.  The hunters came onto my grandfather's property without permission.  He was afraid for their animals.  I live in a big city.  The guns are common.  They keep people in trouble.  One gun was taken from the owner out of his car.  The owner died.  I don't fight.  Not with guns or fists.  I am all for you enjoying your hobby.  The deer starve to death.  We have killed their predators for economic reasons.  Go kill a dear so I don't have to deal with them as I go down the highway.  Enjoy the meat.  Target shoot.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, hasher said:

I grew up in a rural area.  The hunters came onto my grandfather's property without permission.

If you grew up in a rural area, you should know that those trespassers are poachers, not hunters, and hunters really, really don't like them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Contumacious Tom said:

If you grew up in a rural area, you should know that those trespassers are poachers, not hunters, and hunters really, really don't like them.

Call them what you will.  We de-fanged the rabbit patrol in Georgia.  God, they hated when I called them that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, hasher said:

Call them what you will.  We de-fanged the rabbit patrol in Georgia.  God, they hated when I called them that.

I call them what the law calls them and would call the cops on them if they trespassed and poached on my property.

Rabbit patrol?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Contumacious Tom said:

I call them what the law calls them and would call the cops on them if they trespassed and poached on my property.

Rabbit patrol?

Law enforcement for the rabbits and such.  They lost their power when they misused their ability to the forfeiture of private property.  They had a lot of power in their day.  Rabbit sheriff is a good epitaph.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hasher said:

Law enforcement for the rabbits and such.  They lost their power when they misused their ability to the forfeiture of private property.  They had a lot of power in their day.  Rabbit sheriff is a good epitaph.

Sounds interesting. Would you mind sharing details over in the asset forfeiture thread?

Game laws in most states do involve forfeiture of poachers' property that was used in the crime but I don't know if it's like the drug war, where the crime need not be proven. If only the misuse of forfeiture power in that area would result in the loss of it! Oh well, just a libertarian fantasy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Contumacious Tom said:

Sounds interesting. Would you mind sharing details over in the asset forfeiture thread?

Game laws in most states do involve forfeiture of poachers' property that was used in the crime but I don't know if it's like the drug war, where the crime need not be proven. If only the misuse of forfeiture power in that area would result in the loss of it! Oh well, just a libertarian fantasy.

I replied privately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/12/2019 at 7:54 AM, hasher said:

Go kill a dear so I don't have to deal with them as I go down the highway.  Enjoy the meat.  Target shoot.  

I tend to target shoot in my yard but NY City residents can't do that.

Nor can they target shoot anywhere outside their district.

On 2/12/2019 at 7:34 AM, hasher said:
On 2/12/2019 at 7:30 AM, Contumacious Tom said:

Do you thing that outlawing any shooting except at your local range is necessary for the health of our society?

I don't think it would harm our society in any way.  I do believe it might be the single best thing we could do.

So why would target shooting be OK, but only "the best thing we could do" if it's restricted to one local range?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this