BREAKING: New York Legislature to Introduce Bills Making Possession of Any AWB Firearms Illegal

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Quigley_Sharps, Jan 4, 2013.

  1. Quigley_Sharps

    Quigley_Sharps The Badministrator Administrator Founding Member

  2. CATO

    CATO Monkey+++

  3. UGRev

    UGRev Get on with it!

  4. ghrit

    ghrit Bad company Administrator Founding Member

    True, that. Later today, maybe some fact checking will come up, might even turn out to be me that does it. First come some other chores while the sun is shining.
  5. tacmotusn

    tacmotusn RIP 1/13/21

    and ..... it's going to be so effective at curbing violent deaths at the hands of others. NOT
    Since the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Conn., on Dec. 14, Democrats have made reinstatement of the assault weapons ban a major priority for the 113th Congress despite the fact that relatively few murders are killed with weapons that would be banned.

    From 2005 through 2011, more people in the U.S. were killed with hammers and clubs, or with hands and fists, than with rifles, which is what the ban likely would have the most effect on, reports Breitbart.

    There were 496 murders committed with hammers and clubs in 2011, as compared with 323 deaths connected to a rifle, according to FBI records. In 2006, there were 618 killings committed with a hammer or club, and 438 murders with a rifle. Many years, twice as many people were killed with hands and fists than with rifles.

    “While the FBI makes is clear that some of the ‘murder by rifle’ numbers could be adjusted up slightly, when you take into account murders with non-categorized types of guns,” wrote Awr Hawkins, continuing that “it does not change the fact that their annual reports consistently show more lives are taken each year with these blunt objects than are taken with Feinstein's dreaded rifle.”

    Read Latest Breaking News from
  6. UGRev

    UGRev Get on with it!

    what facts are you looking for?
  7. Clyde

    Clyde Jet Set Tourer Administrator Founding Member

    This is how it should be. Let each state determine if they want to have black rifles, suppressors, concealed carry, etc. We all want state's rights, but not when we feel like our state is taking ours away. If New Yorkers, Illinoisers, Connecticuters, New Jerseyiers, and Californians all want to ban them....let them. If people don't like the laws, they can vote in new people to change it.

    I don't agree with it. I don't think it matches the 2nd Amendment, but if that is what they want, fine. Ban away....

    Just don't tell me and my state that I can't own what I want just because NY, IL, CN, NJ, CA, etc, don't want them.
  8. bfayer

    bfayer Keeper Of The Faith

    I have to disagree. I support your position for anything not enumerated in the constitution, but one state does not have the power to take away what the bill of rights guarantees me. That is the purpose of the 14th amendment.

    If we allow states to take away one part of the Constitution, what stops them from taking away other parts?

    The Constitution is a package deal, its not ala cart pick the parts you like, ignore the parts you don't, that's what got us into the mess we are in today.

    Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2
    Brokor likes this.
  9. Clyde

    Clyde Jet Set Tourer Administrator Founding Member

    Ok. My previous statement is because I am tired of talking to idiot fucking people about this who have a majority east coast mindset (sorry to lump you all together - but if you are east of the Mississippi + California + Washington State + Oregon + Iowa + Minnesota, you live in a land of fucking idiots controlled by libtardic [AH] s, and have just about nothing but [FF] cheese eating surrender monkeys as representatives).

    It is time for the game to get on one way or another. But there is no other way that this is going to get resolved unless it rises to the Supreme Court. They are going to have to decide if it is about hunting like the sheeple are being brainwashed into thinking (as I heard on a NYC street....."Why does anyone need a 30 round 'clip' to go hunting".....well, you idiot, you went to stupid, revisionist history school, that left out the details) or if it is about the people having the right to defend themselves when Mordor rises from the ashes."

    I for one believe you should be able to own it all and not select from the constitution as you stated. But the problem arise that the libtards in these states are only interested in selective bill of rights (forget the 10th, fuck the 4th, and kill the 2nd, but damn it, the 1st Amendment trumps them all).

    I was sitting having a beer yesterday with a soldier and I asked him if he would disarm a US citizen, Answer: 1) They can tell me to do what they want me to do outside the US, but unless we are invaded, I would have a difficult time doing this on US soil (ok, good enough answer) 2) But, if a person was illegally owning a gun of some sort, I would have not problem executing that order (contradiction, concern flags rising)......3) We have a well regulated militia that is armed sufficiently in each state in the form of the national guard (concern flags going up) as it is made up of the people of each state.....

    So, the government brain washing appears to follow the line that the "right to keep and bear arms , being necessary for the well regulated Militia and the security of the state, shall not be infringed.....

    Versus as written:

    " 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"

    This is what we need to be concerned about.

    [cow][rnt] kiss my [FF]ass, Brady Campaign, you cacksuckers!
    VisuTrac, UGRev and JABECmfg like this.
  10. Clyde

    Clyde Jet Set Tourer Administrator Founding Member

    There is a reason I stick to the beer tent
    VisuTrac and Brokor like this.
  11. BTPost

    BTPost Stumpy Old Fart,Deadman Walking, Snow Monkey Moderator

    No, @Clyde, SCOTUS, settled that debate, with Heller and Chicago.... which ARE the Law of the Land, Period... The Right to Keep and Bear Arms, has NOTHNG TO DO with National Guard, or Organized Militia, and EVERYTHING TO DO with a PERSONAL RIGHT, that is available ANYWHERE in the Territory of the USA. This is what Heller and Chicago was ALL ABOUT, and this is SETTLED LAW. This is why Illinois is under the 180 Day Stay, on their CCW Statute, and it MUST PASS Constitutional Muster, in that Federal Appeals Court, which sited Heller and Chicago, as it's precedent, in it's ruling. If the Legislature in Illinois, can't write a Constitutional Statute, and get their Governor to SIGN it into LAW, during that 180 Day Stay, it will expire and the Federal Appeals Court Ruling will make their current CCW Ban Statute, Unconstitutional, and VOID. This is a MAJOR Ruling, that has set SIGNIFICANT Precedent, and all this BS about AWB Bans is likely to run into these same issues, in local Federal District, and Appeals, Courts across the Land.
    VisuTrac likes this.
  12. Clyde

    Clyde Jet Set Tourer Administrator Founding Member

    Bruce - I sure hope so. I don't trust them at all. Carrying a gun is guaranteed, but is ammunition? magazine capacity? I don't see what that has to do in the goverment eyes.
  13. BTPost

    BTPost Stumpy Old Fart,Deadman Walking, Snow Monkey Moderator

    If you believe in the "Rule Of LAW" then this is what will happen.... HOWEVER, there are Folks, that do NOT care about the Rule of Law, if it doesn't suit their agenda, and those are the folks that had better NOT cross my Path.....
  14. ghrit

    ghrit Bad company Administrator Founding Member

    Found all I need. It's a real bill, referred to the "committee on codes" whatever that is. Passage is NOT imminent, but needs to be watched and comments submitted at all stages of its progress.
  15. CATO

    CATO Monkey+++

    Soon, the SCOTUS will lean heavily towards liberalism/law creation. That's when we're f'***ed.
    UGRev likes this.
  16. bfayer

    bfayer Keeper Of The Faith

    Let's just hope Justice Kennedy does not decide to retire, and pray that Justice Scalia stays healthy until the next election.

    I have no doubt that an Obama stacked court would redefine "established law" in a heartbeat.

    Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
  17. CATO

    CATO Monkey+++

    I'm surprised Scalia hasn't already had a Breitbart moment. In the next four years, the court will be packed with Kagans and Sotomayors -- people who got where they are not because of their merit, but because they were a protected class. It wouldn't surprise me if Elizabeth Warren wasn't sitting on the bench in 4 years.
  18. UGRev

    UGRev Get on with it!

    You got that right..
  19. bfayer

    bfayer Keeper Of The Faith

    Well at least we would have an American Indian on the Court :)

    In all seriousness, everyone knows Ginsburg is retiring (She has cancer). It really doesn't matter who Obama nominates to replace her, there is no possible way to find a more liberal activist. Warren can't be worse.

    My fear is the stay in the Illinois case is designed to give Obama time to put a new Justice or two on the court before the case gets appealed, in which case it would give the new Court a shot at Heller and McDonald much sooner than it would otherwise, but not to soon to have the current court hear the case.

    Our only hope if Obama does stack the deck in the Supreme Court, is to stop any and all cases from making it to the Court until the balance shifts back. That could take decades. The liberals know this so they are going to push as many new unconstitutional laws as possible in hopes they can get one reviewed by a new Supreme Court, and overturn "Established law". In their mind the worst case is the laws don't get appealed to the Supreme Court for 10 or 20 years.

    It's going to be a long 4 years.
survivalmonkey SSL seal warrant canary