Andrew Cuomo: That gun law I signed turned out to be utterly unworkable, huh?

[Wehrwolfen]

By Ed Morrissey
03/21/2013


If Andrew Cuomo has truly had an epiphany about his approach to gun regulation, it’s not really evident from this admission. The New York Times reports that Cuomo will now try to rush some changes into his banner gun-control legislation that forced New York gun owners to use magazines that no one manufactures, with even the one exception to the rule found to be unworkable (via Legal Insurrection):

In the wake of the elementary school massacre in Newtown, Conn., Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo of New York pushed through the State Legislature gun control measures that included not only a tougher assault weapons ban but also a tighter restriction on the maximum legal capacity of gun magazines.​

But after weeks of criticism from gun owners, Mr. Cuomo said on Wednesday that he would seek to ease the restriction, which he said had proved unworkable even before it was scheduled to take effect on April 15.

The gun-control law, approved in January, banned the sale of magazines that hold more than seven rounds of ammunition. But, Mr. Cuomo said Wednesday, seven-round magazines are not widely manufactured. And, although the new gun law provided an exemption for the use of 10-round magazines at firing ranges and competitions, it did not provide a legal way for gun owners to purchase such magazines.​

Now, one might think that after having been embarrassed by his own ignorance — and in the face of a number of critics who pointed these issues out from the beginning — Cuomo would advise the legislature to repeal the bill and start over again. One would be … wrong. This New York governor has decided to correct one idiocy with another, emphasis mine:

As a result, he said, he and legislative leaders were negotiating language that would continue to allow the sale of magazines holding up to 10 rounds, but still forbid New Yorkers from loading more than 7 rounds into those magazines.​

[Excerpt]

Read more:
Cuomo: That gun law I signed turned out to be utterly unworkable, huh? « Hot Air

 

[The2ndAmendment]

In Malbury vs Madison:

“A law repugnant to the Constitution is void."

Later on in our history:

The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts per formed under it.....

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the lend, it is superseded thereby.

No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.

 

[bitterlyclingin]

A fellow blogger once personally witnessed the preferred Saudi method of execution.

"Because he was 'Ameriki' the crowd graciously moved aside so he could have a front row view. He said it really wasn't that bad, they forcefully goose the victim causing him to bring his head up giving the swordsman a better angle, which is followed by the body routinely doing its little 'chicken dance' afterwards. The Saudi afficianados, those who ritually attend each and every similar event, say that if you watch carefully you can see the eyes blinking afterwards."
I wonder if Andrew's eyes would blink?
"He did say he would have felt perfectly safe walking down the streets in Riyadh at 3:00AM in the morning counting his money."