Its starting ! The seizing of guns.

[g5000]

If these are assault rifles, they almost assuredly violate federal law.
The NY police, upon fidning these assault rifles, would call the BATFE... because they almost assuredly violate federal law.

All caught up now?

And for all we know they did call the ATF.

The story says it is undetermined if he got his weapons and ammo back.

 

[M14 Shooter]

LOL! What part of 'Seized' do you not understand?

If these are assault rifles, they almost assuredly violate federal law.
The NY police, upon finding these assault rifles, would call the BATFE... because they almost assuredly violate federal law.
What part of this do you not understand?

 

[M14 Shooter]

And for all we know they did call the ATF.

And for all we know, they did not.
Fact is, the NY police, not the BATFE, seized these weapons; if there was any thought they might violate federal law, these weapons stay put until the Feds get there.

 

[toobfreak]

The seizing of guns.​

I believe his constitutional rights were violated

You left out the fact that the guy was a criminal who was being investigated and searched for stolen property, and that many of the guns seized are disallowed anyway in the New York state of Cuomostan.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Yes, it does, moron.
"officers also found nine illegal assault rifles'.
"In all, police seized more than 40 rifles, shotguns, a bin full of handguns and tens of thousands of rounds of ammunition".
Evidently the 9 rifles were illegally, modified.

What was illegal about them?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Get a psychiatrist. They will be able to help you with that question. How many questions? It is up to you.

What was illegal about his so called assault weapons?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

C'mon......you despise teachers.
BUT if if comes to guns, then you support the criminal.

I dont despise teachers unless they deserve it.

 

[Winco]

I dont despise teachers unless they deserve it.

I don't despise pastors, lawyers, politicians or neighbors...... unless they earn it.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

I don't despise pastors, lawyers, politicians or neighbors...... unless they earn it.

True enough.

 

[Rogue AI]

The state stole his private property based solely on an ambiguous statement. That should be one of the most important points regarding this despicable government overreach. So much for due process.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

The state stole his private property based solely on an ambiguous statement. That should be one of the most important points regarding this despicable government overreach. So much for due process.

Errr...the State entered his residence based on evidence he was a thief who abused his position of authority as a teacher to make his students into accomplices to multiple felonies. In the course of searching his house for the stolen property, which was found, multiple weapons were found in plain view, many of them alleged to be illegally modified under New York state, and possibly Federal, law. The stolen property and illegal guns were booked into evidence and the remaining weapons confiscated.
A judge did not find probable cause to deem the defendant an immediate risk and denied the State's petition to keep the remaining legal guns and ammo.
It is unknown if the weapons have been returned yet.
As an aside, if the defendant is found guilty of a felony, he will lose the right to own all firearms.
Thus the point is moot, 2nd amendment-wise.

Guys, this is hardly the best argument for egregious 2nd amendment abuse--frankly, I'm amazed any of you would even defend this POS..but politics does indeed make for strange bedfellows~

 

[2aguy]

WOW, because, people were injured or killed.

No, shit genius.
Why even revise safety hazards at the plant?
The explosion only killed 12 people, safety laws didn't help them either.

The courts ruled otherwise.
The 2nd amendment doesn't prevent a limit, nor does the 2nd amendment allow unlimited guns and ammo.

Yeah...dumb shit.......you morons never read this part of Heller...

Is tht AR-15 a bearable arm? Tell you clod....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001),


the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

--------
Then....you doofus.......this is extended comments from Scalia...the guy who wrote the Heller decision.....on the AR-15 by name.....you idiot...

Keep in mind....at that time there were about 5 million AR-15s in private hands...there are now well over 20 million.....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf

The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.

Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.


Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

 

[Rogue AI]

Errr...the State entered his residence based on evidence he was a thief who abused his position of authority as a teacher to make his students into accomplices to multiple felonies. In the course of searching his house for the stolen property, which was found, multiple weapons were found in plain view, many of them alleged to be illegally modified under New York state, and possibly Federal, law. The stolen property and illegal guns were booked into evidence and the remaining weapons confiscated.
A judge did not find probable cause to deem the defendant an immediate risk and denied the State's petition to keep the remaining legal guns and ammo.
It is unknown if the weapons have been returned yet.
As an aside, if the defendant is found guilty of a felony, he will lose the right to own all firearms.
Thus the point is moot, 2nd amendment-wise.

Guys, this is hardly the best argument for egregious 2nd amendment abuse--frankly, I'm amazed any of you would even defend this POS..but politics does indeed make for strange bedfellows~

The remaining totally legal weapons were stolen without due process or even a valid warrant. The burden to have them returned should be on the state, not the individual whose rights were violated.

What 'politics' are you whining about? My concerns are the abuses by the state in regards to Constitutional protections. I hold the same views regardless of 'politics'.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

The remaining totally legal weapons were stolen without due process or even a valid warrant. The burden to have them returned should be on the state, not the individual whose rights were violated.

What 'politics' are you whining about? My concerns are the abuses by the state in regards to Constitutional protections. I hold the same views regardless of 'politics'.

They were not 'stolen'...legal process was observed, judgement rendered..and would think the guns will go back to him. Maybe not, the state might just act, somehow, to deny this guy his guns--or they may sit on him. Truth is, i don't care..he's a thief and a user of children..he's going to lose his rights anyway....so screw it.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Yes, they do.

BUT in 1934 and since, people can't own unlicensed fully automatic weapons, tanks cannons, etc.

WTF?
Of course, that's why laws were invented.

Gun nuts pushed the limits of normal people.

Actually people can and do tanks and cannon. I did some phone work for a guy that owned about forty tanks and hundreds of military vehicles that were fully operational. he told me it started out as a hobby with a few tanks and trucks, then he found out there was good money providing them as props for movies and TV shows. Now he lives on an old dairy farm and makes a very good living from his hobby. Another guy I knew had a Twelve Pounder Napoleon cannon from the ACW. He shot it all the time and rented it out for special events, movies and TV shows. Thousands, maybe millions of Americans own fully automatic weapons.

 

[SavannahMann]

They arrested the person... after he committed the crime.

Thus, the law did not "help" as the crime was already committed.

Feel free to demonstrate otherwise - else, I accept your concession.

There are laws which prohibit speeding. Yet I’m betting you exceed the lawful speed every time you drive.

Laws allow people to be punished when they are caught violating the aforementioned law. Because the laws are not obeyed doesn’t mean we should embrace anarchy. People run stop signs, want to get rid of them all? People engage in prostitution. People buy drugs. People gamble. All of these things are generally speaking. Illegal.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

What was illegal about them?

The article doesn't state.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

Yeah...dumb shit.......you morons never read this part of Heller...

Is tht AR-15 a bearable arm? Tell you clod....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001),


the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

--------
Then....you doofus.......this is extended comments from Scalia...the guy who wrote the Heller decision.....on the AR-15 by name.....you idiot...

Keep in mind....at that time there were about 5 million AR-15s in private hands...there are now well over 20 million.....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf

The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.

Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.


Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

WTF, Q-NUT?
Overdosing on orange kool-aid................Again?
You post this gobbledygook, in response to this?

The 2nd amendment doesn't prevent a limit, nor does the 2nd amendment allow unlimited guns and ammo.

Never even mentioned any type of weapon.
Just when you think a teabagger can't get any dumber..............they surprise you.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

Actually people can and do tanks and cannon.

I know.
"in 1934 and since, people can't own unlicensed fully automatic weapons, tanks cannons, etc."

I did some phone work for a guy that owned about forty tanks and hundreds of military vehicles that were fully operational. he told me it started out as a hobby with a few tanks and trucks, then he found out there was good money providing them as props for movies and TV shows. Now he lives on an old dairy farm and makes a very good living from his hobby. Another guy I knew had a Twelve Pounder Napoleon cannon from the ACW. He shot it all the time and rented it out for special events, movies and TV shows. Thousands, maybe millions of Americans own fully automatic weapons.

Yes, they do, but not without a permit or registration.

 

[Flash]

nor does the 2nd amendment allow unlimited guns and ammo.

That is a lie.