New York State fights back
gotta give it to those old WW2 and Korean war vets, they turned out at a meeting, and put the heat to the government officials about the assault weapons ban in NY state. They have a resistance website set up already, and filed a lawsuit against the state.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ol1SzjHPFGw
they have a "resistance gear" website and already 3000 gun owners have pledged NOT to comply
WATCH THE VIDEO, they ask the sheriff if he will limit his officers to 7 rounds mags, he says "NO" and he also says it's against the 2nd Amendment and gets applause
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ol1SzjHPFGwthey have a "resistance gear" website and already 3000 gun owners have pledged NOT to comply
WATCH THE VIDEO, they ask the sheriff if he will limit his officers to 7 rounds mags, he says "NO" and he also says it's against the 2nd Amendment and gets applause
0
-
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
quote:Originally posted by nards444
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
But the magazines were NOT illegal because the Bill of rights says he can have them!!!! [:(!]
bill of rights does not saying anything specific. But was left open for interpreation for a reason so it can change with the time, and sometimes that is the problem.
Either way the law still existed right or wrong. I hate speed limits, but face the consequences if your break them.
His 'right' to 'keep and bear arms' was 'infringed' thus his civil right were violated by those who enforced an unconstitutional "law"!!![:(]
Not to mention the cops who arrested him were in DIRECT violation of the oath they took![:(!]
Does the Constitution (Bill of Rights) give you the 'right' to drive or speed? I think not. Invalid comparison! [V]
Its all interpretation my friend. The local cops swear to defend the States constituion anyways. Anyways the Old law at least in the court of law was never determined to violate the states consitution, so the cops were in fact not doing anything wrong.
But I see what you are getting and not disagreeing or agreeing, but if thats how you choose to look at things regarding the law, do whatever your life can handle.0 -
quote:Originally posted by nards444
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
quote:Originally posted by nards444
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
But the magazines were NOT illegal because the Bill of rights says he can have them!!!! [:(!]
bill of rights does not saying anything specific. But was left open for interpreation for a reason so it can change with the time, and sometimes that is the problem.
Either way the law still existed right or wrong. I hate speed limits, but face the consequences if your break them.
His 'right' to 'keep and bear arms' was 'infringed' thus his civil right were violated by those who enforced an unconstitutional "law"!!![:(]
Not to mention the cops who arrested him were in DIRECT violation of the oath they took![:(!]
Does the Constitution (Bill of Rights) give you the 'right' to drive or speed? I think not. Invalid comparison! [V]
Its all interpretation my friend. The local cops swear to defend the States constituion anyways. Any the Old law at least in the court of law was never determined to violate the states consitution, so the cops were in fact not doing anything wrong.
But I see what you are getting and disagreeing or agreeing, but if thats how you choose to look at things regarding the law, do whatever your life can handle.
Correct you are. And you do not need a law degree or a black rope to interrupt ANY of the Bill of Rights! It was written in simple language for a reason. And those who say the courts are the 'final' interpreters is like saying it is ok for the fox to be in the hen house!!![V]
Why don't you all wake up and smell the stench of the courts and legislatures?????[?]0 -
Like I said I am not necessarily disagreeing with you. My point behind all of this was for one the PERP was arrested and prosecution had begun before the new started, agree with the old or new law doesnt matter, people are getting the facts twisted. Second the guy did a bunch of other things that led up him getting into even more trouble. And being a vet I do not like when people pull vets into a political agenda like is being done here, regardless if the cause is worthy or not.
The courts are the final say whether a law is constituinal or not, just the way it is, and those judges are either elected by us or appointed by officials that we voted in. You or I may not have voted them in, but the majority did, and in this country majority rules, which if you are the majority then you are good, but if you are not in a particular case, then I guess you are SOL.
I have tried in the last few years to vote educatedly and do my best, and guns are important to me, but it is not always the only issue either. I may not agree with the guns laws or other laws, but if I know that something illegal to me at least its not worth going behind bars for. And I know on here many people talk big about bucking the system, which fine go ahead, but in the reality is nobody does anything and really you cant unless you want to be in jail.0 -
No the courts ARE NOT the final say, "We the people are"![:(!] 0 -
I could kill more dear beloved school children with a hammer in less time than that Adam guy with no reload even. You all including our sons and daughters are being screwed. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
No the courts ARE NOT the final say, "We the people are"![:(!]
well we the people either voted for the judges or the people that put them there. And the courts are the final say as is worded in the tution.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
36 comments