Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Your post explains nothing and proves nothing. And you should probably desist from the personal attacks unless you have special permission to make them.
My post is crystal clear and I am not sure why you pretend that you don't understand.
To take away someone's rights, you need to follow the due process of the law, not just because someone said so.
My post is crystal clear and I am not sure why you pretend that you don't understand.
To take away someone's rights, you need to follow the due process of the law, not just because someone said so.
Why is that difficult to understand?
And New York has established a law. Just because you don't like it (even though you no doubt supported it on Dec. 14), doesn't make it NOT due process of law.
And New York has established a law. Just because you don't like it (even though you no doubt supported it on Dec. 14), doesn't make it NOT due process of law.
Why is that difficult to understand?
The due process of the law is defined in the Constitution. NY can create any law they want but they need to be in compliance with the Constitution.
"Due process of the law" is actually defined nowhere in the Constitution.
Kind of interesting you called yourself "HistorianDude"
"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
This is the perfect example of what I've been stating all along. I've contended that if the pro gun crowd doesn't sit down at the table with the anti gun faction and hammer out what constitutes reasonable restrictions then the anti-gunners will do it for us.
I am and have been an avid collector of fine firearms for many decades and I'm also a strong supporter of the second amendment. But I do see a need for reasonable rules pertaining to gun owners. Each law abiding, mentally competent citizen of this country has the right to own a firearm. The right of self defense is a right that transcends even constitutional law. The right of society to curtail the Accessibility of firearms by those who shouldn't have them is also just as relevant a right.
I've concluded that the "meeting in the middle" for gun owners and reasonable restrictions proponents is licensing of all gun owners currently and in the future. Requirements for Licensing would contain safety training, mental competency, responsibility of gun ownership and a working knowledge of the legal ramifications of using one.
I find the New York action of permit confiscation for anyone who has ever been prescribed an SSRI to be arbitrary and unconstitutional. Unfortunately, this is exactly what you get at the state and local level when gun advocates refuse to collaborate with their legislatures in forming the reasonable restrictions that society demands.
I have proposed that mental incompetence or threat to society be determined by medical doctors experienced in diagnosing or treating mental illness. I also proposed that anyone determined to be a likely homicidal maniac be denied the right to carry, but allowed to own, firearms. I am concerned with what a maniac may do outside their dwelling but believe they still have the right to have a gun to defend themselves and their home.
I am very opposed to all gun registration ideas and only slightly in agreement with Concealed Carry Permits. I believe even these present a threat, as we have seen in NYS, to the free and open ownership of firearms. I believe, as a free, sane and non-criminal citizen, have a right to own and carry any kind of gun wherever I have a right to be. I believe that is just as fundamental right as the right of any woman to control what is done to and with her own body. I am pro individual choice in both controversies.
Ah good, I'm planning to move to New York soonish. Now I know that if I ever feel depressed or anxious, to just keep my mouth shut so the cops won't bust my door down and take my guns away. Thanks New York for helping me make the right decision on my mental health!
Somethingthe right wingers were counting on as being impossible when they first proposed mental illness as the sole (pathetic) criterion for denying firearms possession.
Too bad the law requires docs to share such information when they believe the individual is a danger to others.
You really should change your name, HistorianDude just doesn't work for you. Try, Knows very little about history HistorianDude.
And anytime someone writes "rightwinger" or "*******" I instantly know they cannot be taken serious because they are blind to the truth since they follow the party line.
Like I said. You are the guys who proposed mental illness as being the sole criterion for denying firearms possession.
Sure, claim that:
A. I represent a group consisting of over a hundred million Americans.
B. A complex issue can be reduced to this "you guys proposed ... sole criteria..." nonsense. You're the only person who has made that claim.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude
Now you are suddenly confronted with the actual consequences of such a criterion, and you scatter like squirrels.
Well don't you just think you're clever as hell?
Newsflash: You're not. Your arrogant and condescending attitude won't win you any arguments.
The topic at hand is whether or not New York has the legal standing to deny a citizen of their Constitutional rights based merely on a doctor's prescription. That's it. That's the topic. Stick to it.
You won't find a single reasonable person in this forum that believes that any person intent on doing harm should have access to weapons - any weapons. That said, a doctor's prescription has NEVER satisfied the requirements of due process or adjudication. THAT is the issue at hand. Your attempts to redefine the topic of this thread - and the context of what the state of New York is doing - is both childish and dishonest.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
