So New York is about to basically ban 75% of handguns (lawyers, FBI)
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.
While it won't take long before the SCOTUS smacks this down as unconstitutional...
The national assault weapon ban held for decades, and most conservs on this board were so confident ACA would be deemed unconstitutional.
In short, it is not predictable. The SC is several rungs above where any challenge would start, and the federal assault weapon bans of the past would weigh in NY's favor.
Add in Nixon and other Presidents often got a judge of a different political bent than expected when nominating them. So anyone predicting SC votes would be better served taking a wait..a long, long time..and see approach.
The national assault weapon ban held for decades, and most conservs on this board were so confident ACA would be deemed unconstitutional.
In short, it is not predictable. The SC is several rungs above where any challenge would start, and the federal assault weapon bans of the past would weigh in NY's favor.
Add in Nixon and other Presidents often got a judge of a different political bent than expected when nominating them. So anyone predicting SC votes would be better served taking a wait..a long, long time..and see approach.
This law would ban the very semi-auto handgun the SCOTUS ruled was protected by the second amendment in Heller. It's a pretty simple case. The SCOTUS never touched the second amendment when the last AWB was in effect (for 1 decade, not decades).
The national assault weapon ban held for decades, and most conservs on this board were so confident ACA would be deemed unconstitutional.
In short, it is not predictable. The SC is several rungs above where any challenge would start, and the federal assault weapon bans of the past would weigh in NY's favor.
Add in Nixon and other Presidents often got a judge of a different political bent than expected when nominating them. So anyone predicting SC votes would be better served taking a wait..a long, long time..and see approach.
An assault weapon ban and banning most of the handguns that people own to defend their homes are 2 very different things. The SCOTUS has already rules that people have a right to own handguns for personal defense.
Wildlife doesn't vote, and those few urbanites are part of the vast majority or people who live within greater metropolitan regions, either in cities or ring suburbs.
Yes, geographical majority is a laughable concept. It never matters in a one person, one vote democracy, and it never will.
You've never read the U.S. Constitution. We have a Senate which gives every state equal representation regardless of population precisely to prevent the tyranny of the majority.
This law would ban the very semi-auto handgun the SCOTUS ruled was protected by the second amendment in Heller. It's a pretty simple case. The SCOTUS never touched the second amendment when the last AWB was in effect (for 1 decade, not decades).
Different court now, and with each new court, new interpretations. In several years, we'll know, so in the interim years at minimum, it is the law of the land. It would take several months per lower courts of multiple levels to even be considered by the SC. By that time, there may well be 1 or 2 new appointees.
15. Any violation by any person of any provision of this section is a class A misdemeanor.
...............
"In common usage, the term 'person' does not include the sovereign, [and] statutes employing the [word] are ordinarily construed to exclude it."
Wilson v. Omaha Indian Tribe, 442 U.S. 653, 667, 61 L.Ed2. 153, 99 S.Ct. 2529 (1979)
(quoting United States v. Cooper Corp. 312 U.S. 600, 604, 85 L.Ed. 1071, 61S.Ct. 742 (1941)).
"A Sovereign cannot be named in any statute as merely a 'person' or 'any person'".
Wills v. Michigan State Police, 105 L.Ed. 45 (1989)
See? NY never trespassed on the sovereign people’s right to bear arms, on their private property (their persons), in defense of person and property. They only legislated restrictions upon “their” subject persons.
No one bothered to ask if the law extended to the sovereign people.
No servant can deny rights of the master.
-------------------------
References on sovereignty of the people
The people of the state, as the successors of its former sovereign, are entitled to all the rights which formerly belonged to the king by his own prerogative.
Lansing v. Smith, (1829) 4 Wendell 9, (NY)
At the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people and they are truly the sovereigns of the country.
Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 440, 463
It will be admitted on all hands that with the exception of the powers granted to the states and the federal government, through the Constitutions, the people of the several states are unconditionally sovereign within their respective states.
Ohio L. Ins. & T. Co. v. Debolt 16 How. 416, 14 L.Ed. 997
In America, however, the case is widely different. Our government is founded upon compact. Sovereignty was, and is, in the people.
[ Glass vs The Sloop Betsey, 3 Dall 6 (1794)]
Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts.
[Yick Wo vs Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370 (1886)]
.......
A non-legal reference to sovereignty - - -
.................................................. ...............
ALIEN, n. An American sovereign in his probationary state.
- - - - “The Devil’s Dictionary” (1906), by Ambrose Bierce
.................................................. ...............
His audience knew what an “American sovereign” was, to understand the joke.
You've never read the U.S. Constitution. We have a Senate which gives every state equal representation regardless of population precisely to prevent the tyranny of the majority.
LOL! It also created a house proportinate to population-a fact you conveniently omitted. The fact non-rural votes count equally to rural individually means there is no tyranny. But at the end of the day, 50% plus 1 overall rules. Rural regions need to build coalitions with more populated regions, or else for them, 50% plus 1 will never happen.
An assault weapon ban and banning most of the handguns that people own to defend their homes are 2 very different things. The SCOTUS has already rules that people have a right to own handguns for personal defense.
Remember how Republicans argued that voucherizing Medicare was the way to save it? This is the same argument used for the guns. We need to ban guns to protect the second amendment. Makes as much sense as the Medicare plan did.
Who's on the edge, I don't live anywhere near NY and I don't travel there often either.
I've already said, if you do live in NY and you want to get rid of some high capacity XDm .40 mags PM me, I'll buy them cash. I don't live in a state that takes pride in eliminating people's 2nd amendment rights.
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.