• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

NY State *passes* most restrictive weapons ban ever after being rushed to a vote.

Page 29 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
69,059
17,210
136
Of the enumerated powers the federal govt is granted, not one of them is regulating firearms. The bill of rights was a mistake as many at the time thought, as enumerating rights is somewhat saying govt grants rights, and that is not the case. The constitution limits govt by saying what the federal govt CAN do, not what it specifically can't, which is why the bill of rights is a mistake, redundant and has allowed for this sabotage over the years. But the 9th amendment clarifies the original intent.

But are states allowed to regulate a right?

The 14th through the due process clause fully incorporates the bill of rights against the states, including the 2nd. Please read http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-1521.ZC1.html for a better explanation than I can give.
Of course the Feds can regulate gun ownership. Commerce clause. End of story.
 

Daverino

Platinum Member
Mar 15, 2007
2,004
1
0
What I find shocking is, with a year on the books, criminal lords have not overrun the State of New York and its newly disarmed populous. I keep looking out the window to see American Fallujah, but instead I see a wholly intact Grand Central Station.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
69,059
17,210
136
What I find shocking is, with a year on the books, criminal lords have not overrun the State of New York and its newly disarmed populous. I keep looking out the window to see American Fallujah, but instead I see a wholly intact Grand Central Station.
Strangely, the murder rate in the now-disarmed communist hellscape that is New York City hit a record low last year.
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,321
2
0
What I find shocking is, with a year on the books, criminal lords have not overrun the State of New York and its newly disarmed populous. I keep looking out the window to see American Fallujah, but instead I see a wholly intact Grand Central Station.
Who said they would? All this law did was make criminals out of normal citizens. Are you any safer because I had to go out and buy 10 round magazines for my guns but only keep 7 in them? Is anyone safer? Did a mass murderer end his spree early because he had to comply with the NY safe act? The NY Safe Act was a knee jerk reaction that will do abso-fucking-lutely nothing to help reduce crime, but that wasn't what this was about to begin with was it?
 

Daverino

Platinum Member
Mar 15, 2007
2,004
1
0
Who said they would? All this law did was make criminals out of normal citizens. Are you any safer because I had to go out and buy 10 round magazines for my guns but only keep 7 in them? Is anyone safer? Did a mass murderer end his spree early because he had to comply with the NY safe act? The NY Safe Act was a knee jerk reaction that will do abso-fucking-lutely nothing to help reduce crime, but that wasn't what this was about to begin with was it?
Go back and reread the thread. Go read about all the terrible things that were predicted because of this law and then tell me whether any of them came true.
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,321
2
0
Go back and reread the thread. Go read about all the terrible things that were predicted because of this law and then tell me whether any of them came true.
You specifically said "criminal lords have not overrun the State of New York and its newly disarmed populous". Can you link to someone saying even anything close to that?
 

Kadarin

Lifer
Nov 23, 2001
44,311
8
81
Go back and reread the thread. Go read about all the terrible things that were predicted because of this law and then tell me whether any of them came true.
The question should be: Did the law affect crime in any way, and was it worth the cost in denying lawful residents their civil liberties?
 

Daverino

Platinum Member
Mar 15, 2007
2,004
1
0
The question should be: Did the law affect crime in any way, and was it worth the cost in denying lawful residents their civil liberties?
Yeah, I'm really not sure any of that happened either. People in NYS still have the right to bear arms. Sky has not fallen. Murder rate in NYC fell to a historic low.

The right to an abortion is protected by the Constitution as equally as the right to bear arms. There were more state laws passed this year to restrict the former Constitutionally protected right than the latter. I often wonder whether gun owners who raise the 2nd amendment argument do so for the love of the Constitution and not just their love of guns.
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,321
2
0
Yeah, I'm really not sure any of that happened either. People in NYS still have the right to bear arms. Sky has not fallen. Murder rate in NYC fell to a historic low.

The right to an abortion is protected by the Constitution as equally as the right to bear arms. There were more state laws passed this year to restrict the former Constitutionally protected right than the latter. I often wonder whether gun owners who raise the 2nd amendment argument do so for the love of the Constitution and not just their love of guns.
So the law didn't do a damn thing but you are happy cause you got to stick it to those gun owners as a payback for abortion laws?
 

MrPickins

Diamond Member
May 24, 2003
8,819
193
106
So the law didn't do a damn thing but you are happy cause you got to stick it to those gun owners as a payback for abortion laws?
Not to mention a fair amount of gun owners also support a woman's right to choose.

Owning a gun (or several) doesn't make you a right-winger.
 

Lithium381

Lifer
May 12, 2001
12,464
2
0
I roll me eyes at them too. Under the loose interpretation of the commerce clause, there is literally nothing that the feds can't regulate.
Yep ask farmers . . . . can't grow on your own land because you might have bought someone eleses product which might have come from another state, therefore it can be regulated. disguting.

eskimo from a lot of your posts you seem like you're a very well educated guy but you seem very bindly loyal to the state. . .
 

HumblePie

Lifer
Oct 30, 2000
14,152
206
106
Yep ask farmers . . . . can't grow on your own land because you might have bought someone eleses product which might have come from another state, therefore it can be regulated. disguting.

eskimo from a lot of your posts you seem like you're a very well educated guy but you seem very bindly loyal to the state. . .
Unfortunately there isn't many side journals of info written by the founding fathers on their intent behind that clause. Usually there is a lot more. I would venture to guess, since everything else the founding fathers were trying to do was limit federal government power, was to only have a clause that allows the federal government to add taxes between interstate trades, or settle disputes. Not basically give the federal government unlimited power.

Most people don't know that the history of the United States was started with a general fear of over reaching, big government that tried to meddle in everyone's lives. A war was fought over that. The United States was really suppose to be a collection of many little countries. Because States meant countries throughout the rest of the world. The United States were suppose to be a collection of little countries with their own sovereignty that was loosely governed by a federal setup at a centralized location. That was why the Constitution was only suppose to enumerate powers of what the federal government can do. Anything not enumerated was not suppose to be a power the government had. It wasn't until later when Andrew Jackson argued over implied powers with Washington that he got him to agree that an enumerated power may not be enough on its own to get the job done and thus implied powers were derived from the enumerated powers to allow the government to do what the enumerated power states. Well that was dandy for the original purpose Andrew Jackson argued, but seriously opened the door to the crap we have now of the feds basically having unlimited powers.

So some little authoritarian dictators could come along and basically state anything can be considered commerce. That anything that could be considered commerce could then be interstate commerce potentially. Because there is a potential it allows regulation by the government. Regulation then was given broader meaning to basically mean anything the feds wanted to do. Which in the end implies the feds have the power to do whatever they want to do with anything they want to do. Yah, somehow I don't see that as the original intent of the law despite what the authoritarians want.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,083
489
126
I havent kept on this debacle. Has the state fixed their fuckup and allowed the state policing agencies and their retarded sounding gov's security detail the ability to carry more than 7 rounds yet?
 

Daverino

Platinum Member
Mar 15, 2007
2,004
1
0
Which amendment says "The right of the people to have an abortion shall not be infringed."?
"The right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the district court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy."

William O Douglas, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.
 

irishScott

Lifer
Oct 10, 2006
21,570
2
0
I havent kept on this debacle. Has the state fixed their fuckup and allowed the state policing agencies and their retarded sounding gov's security detail the ability to carry more than 7 rounds yet?
Oh yeah they did that months ago during an "emergency session". Can't stop and frisk without a full magazine, after all.

Honestly the more I learn about New York from all angles, the less I want to live there.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,587
9
81
"The right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the district court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy."

William O Douglas, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.
LOL, federal government opinions on liberty and privacy. That's amusing.

A woman has the right to abortion, but you can't smoke weed or drink unpasteurized milk without jackbooted thugs breaking down your doors...
 

TerryMathews

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,474
2
0
"The right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the district court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy."

William O Douglas, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.
One is an explicit declaration, the other a court opinion.

Also worth noting there were a number of caveats in the decision that are not encompassed in your quote.

"Shall not be infringed."

There's a reason it's one of the strongest declarations in the entire document.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,083
489
126
Oh yeah they did that months ago during an "emergency session". Can't stop and frisk without a full magazine, after all.

Honestly the more I learn about New York from all angles, the less I want to live there.
Oh course they did. Cant force the state have the same restrictions as the people paying for it.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY