Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Dodge, duck, dip, dive and dodge.
I have summarized the rules quite clearly. Just answer, yes or no, do you consider it infringement?
From what you've told me about NYC gun laws, and I highly doubt that you have given a complete description of them, they could be. Unfortunately, I'm not a constitutional scholar. I will defer to what the State or Federal Supreme Court says. The constitution assigned them that job. Have either of those courts ruled on those laws?
Why can't you form your own opinion?
Getting A NYC Handgun Permit | New York City Guns
The page seems to be a bit wonky on my browser, highlight the text to read it if you have the same issue.
Because I'm not qualified to make rulings on constitutionality of NEW York laws. They seem kinda stiff, but the SC said they were fine. I don't have a problem with them.
You are qualified to have an opinion. So far the SC has never directly ruled on NYC's handgun laws, any challenge usually dies in the lower courts.
And your deference to authority is noted, and not admirably.
Are you sure the state SC hasn't looked at it? If not, could it be that there is just not enough opposition to the laws you mention to make it necessary?
By so high you mean not arbitrary.
Felons and the adjudicated mentally ill cannot possess firearms.
They had oil, they could have sold it to anyone, and the failure of socialism is always someone else's fault.
You really want your rights decided by some guy who isn't elected and has Public union protection?
The bottom fell out of the oil market at the same time that their economy collapsed. Imagine that.
I would rather have an unelected official keeping guns out of the hands of crazy people than having crazy people with guns.
If gun control works so well How did James Brady get a gun shot wound to the head in the 1981 assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan from a loon with a handgun, in a city where they had been banned since 1976? - Miketx
I'd rather not have unelected people, except judges, decide anything about rights.
But we all know your approval of government overreach as long as that overreach agrees with your politics.
I'd rather not have unelected people, except judges, decide anything about rights.
But we all know your approval of government overreach as long as that overreach agrees with your politics.
Yes, my politics includes, "being able to send your kids to school and not be worried a crazy person with a machine gun and a 100 round magazine is going to waste them!"
Your politics seems to be okay with that sort of thing, as long as you don't have to wait to get a gun.
I can see the case where someone who belongs to a well regulated militia has a need for a large capacity magazine. It could be necessary to the security of a free state
But a private gun owner has no use for one other than playing Rambo at the local gun range
But unless you uninvent the gun you can't prevent that from being a possibility.
My politics involve the absolute sanctity of rights enshrined in the constitution.
By so high you mean not arbitrary.
Felons and the adjudicated mentally ill cannot possess firearms.
But yet they are able to get them.
So the system is broken and needs to be fixed. If that means you have to jump through a few more hoops to get a gun, I don't have a problem with that.
I can see the case where someone who belongs to a well regulated militia has a need for a large capacity magazine. It could be necessary to the security of a free state
But a private gun owner has no use for one other than playing Rambo at the local gun range
Again, in most of these crimes the perp could have done just as much damage with 10 round mags and a few hours practice swapping them out.
But unless you uninvent the gun you can't prevent that from being a possibility.
Except for Japan and all the Western European Nations who have done exactly that, um, yeah, totally impossible except for those who actually try.
My politics involve the absolute sanctity of rights enshrined in the constitution.
The Constitution isn't a suicide pact.
I can see the case where someone who belongs to a well regulated militia has a need for a large capacity magazine. It could be necessary to the security of a free state
But a private gun owner has no use for one other than playing Rambo at the local gun range
Again, in most of these crimes the perp could have done just as much damage with 10 round mags and a few hours practice swapping them out.
Actually, no
Having to carry multiple small capacity magazines and efficiently swap them out under extreme stress is no easy task.
If it was just as easy......Mass killers would use smaller capacity magazines....They don't
John Stossel did a piece on that not all that long ago. You should YouTube it. The short version of it is, though he was able to demonstrate DOCUMENTED threats to his life and safety, he was DENIED! Does that mean that NYC thinks Stossel is a "nutcase" or a "criminal"? And no, political disagreement doesn't count as "nutcase", at least not to me and a host of other Americans. In fact, most people would consider a "nutcase" in this situation, as one who is a danger to themselves or others. Does John fit that definition? No. Yet he had to use his fame, fortune and connections to acquire a permit to defend himself. Infringement? You bet.Your gun rights credentials are thin at best.
Simple question, is the fact I have to spend $400 or so and wait 3-6 months in NYC simply to get a home use revolver license infringement or not?
Depends.
If they are taking that time and to make sure you aren't a nutcase or a criminal, then it's not an infringement at all.
If they are just taking that money and time because they can... or to make the process so difficult you give up, you might have a point.
How much actual work do you think the NYPD does for one of these applications?
Have no idea. If that isn't what the money is going for, then that is wrong. I think I made that pretty clear.
The fact that every time there is a mass shooting, we find out there was no good reason for this person to have a gun, but they were able to get them anyway.
so how about this- We have a background check, one time. Costs $500.00 and they actually talk to your coworkers, neighbors, etc. to make sure you aren't someone who shouldn't have a gun, but once you've passed the check, you can have as many guns as you want.
The whole point is to discourage people from applying.
How nuts would people go if they made you wait 3 months to register to vote to make sure you were eligible?
can you kill someone with a vote?
You can kill a country with a vote. Just ask the people of Venezuela about their current buyers remorse.
The problem with your first concept is that the control people will want that to be first every 5 years, then 2 years, then 1 year etc etc.
Your system still requires permission from some bureaucrat that isn't held accountable to anyone. he can just decide "no guns for anyone" and that's it.
Convict criminals of felonies, adjudicate people who are mentally unfit. prosecute people who shouldn't have a gun when they try to get one.
I'll counter with a proposal to have a $500 fee to investigate potential voters to ensure they are eligible.so how about this- We have a background check, one time. Costs $500.00 and they actually talk to your coworkers, neighbors, etc. to make sure you aren't someone who shouldn't have a gun, but once you've passed the check, you can have as many guns as you want.
Go troll somewhere else.10 rounds?
Screw that
Someone wanting to shoot up a church or elementary schools needs as big a magazine as he can get
So, you are proposing to sue a manufacturer because of the actions of a seller. Makes sense. While we are at it why don't we start suing Wal-Mart for faulty blenders too. Besides, sellers already have the option to not sell, and they exercise that option.Then tell the government clerks to press "send" when they are updating criminal records....
Or actually do REAL background checks, and not rely on a database that is designed to be faulty.
Or better yet. Make the gun industry responsible, just like bars are when they serve drunks. No "checking a database". If the guy looks too drunk to drive, you don't serve him. If he looks too crazy to have a gun, you don't sell him one.
If you sell him one anyway, lawsuit time.
I promise you, the first time a gun manufacturer starts paying out big bucks from one of their "elite customer's" actions, they'll clean up their act.
Well, the process for verifying one's eligibility to vote is broken too. So, let's apply the same logic there as well. How about valid, government issued, photo ID to prove you are who you claim to be? Or is that an undue hardship? Remember, you need to provide that very same ID to board a plane, and that isn't a right.By so high you mean not arbitrary.
Felons and the adjudicated mentally ill cannot possess firearms.
But yet they are able to get them.
So the system is broken and needs to be fixed. If that means you have to jump through a few more hoops to get a gun, I don't have a problem with that.
How about you attempt to reword that in a way that is not an insult?If gun control works so well How did James Brady get a gun shot wound to the head in the 1981 assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan from a loon with a handgun, in a city where they had been banned since 1976? - Miketx
sooooo why do NRA ijitis insist that if something doesn't stop 100% of lunatics shooting up the joint then it shouldn't be explored?
waiting for a rational response.
How about you attempt to reword that in a way that is not an insult?If gun control works so well How did James Brady get a gun shot wound to the head in the 1981 assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan from a loon with a handgun, in a city where they had been banned since 1976? - Miketx
sooooo why do NRA ijitis insist that if something doesn't stop 100% of lunatics shooting up the joint then it shouldn't be explored?
waiting for a rational response.
