Gun Owners Refuse to Register Under New NY Law

[Contumacious]

Contractual?

I was referring to the CONSTITUTION

What contract prohibits you from stealing my property? If you burn my house down or rape my son, what contracts have you broken?

Laws. They regulate our behavior including behavior between "private parties".

Your state has statutory police powers to deal with the referenced matters.


.

[johnpolitics]

We shall reduce it to one word.

Freeman (Colonial), in U.S. colonial times, a person not under legal restraint

.

I have no problem with people owning guns. It's our culture. I do not see waiting peroids or background checks as a restriction on the 2nd Amendment.

[Contumacious]

I have no problem with people owning guns. It's our culture. I do not see waiting peroids or background checks as a restriction on the 2nd Amendment.

I have no problem with people owning guns. It's our RIGHT. Waiting periods or background checks ARE restrictions on OUR ABSOLUTE RIGHT to life and to defend the same.


I do not need to convince THE ENEMY that I have such a right.

.

[johnpolitics]

I have no problem with people owning guns. It's our RIGHT. Waiting periods or background checks ARE restrictions on OUR ABSOLUTE RIGHT to life and to defend the same.


I do not need to convince THE ENEMY that I have such a right.

.

Questions? Who is THE ENEMY? How are waiting period and background checks a restriction? I hope we both agree ex-cons, mentally unstable people (graduates of Shephard Pratt) should not own guns.

[Mom49of4]

Not everyone that graduates from Shephard Pratt should not own guns.

[Contumacious]

Questions? Who is THE ENEMY? How are waiting period and background checks a restriction? I hope we both agree ex-cons, mentally unstable people (graduates of Shephard Pratt) should not own guns.

The CONTINUING CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE KNOWN AS THE US GOVERNMENT.

.

[johnpolitics]

The CONTINUING CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE KNOWN AS THE US GOVERNMENT.

.

How are waiting period and background checks a restriction? I hope we both agree ex-cons, mentally unstable people (graduates of Shephard Pratt) should not own guns.

[Mom49of4]

How are waiting period and background checks a restriction? I hope we both agree ex-cons, mentally unstable people (graduates of Shephard Pratt) should not own guns.

Why graduates of Shepard Pratt? Are all of those who end up there violent?

[Contumacious]

How are waiting period and background checks a restriction? I hope we both agree ex-cons, mentally unstable people (graduates of Shephard Pratt) should not own guns.

If the government was to declared that John Politics is not qualified to carry a firearm the people would have no way of knowing whether the conclusion is supported by the facts or based on some arbitrary measure to cause a de facto disarmament.

.

.

[johnpolitics]

If the government was to declared that John Politics is not qualified to carry a firearm the people would have no way of knowing whether the conclusion is supported by the facts or based on some arbitrary measure to cause a de facto disarmament.

.

.

I believe ex-cons should not own guns. Please tell me why you think ex-cons should own guns?

[Contumacious]

I believe ex-cons should not own guns. Please tell me why you think ex-cons should own guns?

If the government was to declared that John Politics is not qualified to carry a firearm the people would have no way of knowing whether the conclusion is supported by the facts or based on some arbitrary measure to cause a de facto disarmament.

.

[johnpolitics]

If the government was to declared that John Politics is not qualified to carry a firearm the people would have no way of knowing whether the conclusion is supported by the facts or based on some arbitrary measure to cause a de facto disarmament.

.

I asked a yes or no question, answer please. I think the facts would be easy to find if someone was an ex-con?

[Mom49of4]

I have asked you a question john and so far no response.

[Contumacious]

I asked a yes or no question, answer please. I think the facts would be easy to find if someone was an ex-con?

Let me rephrase my question.

The government claims that JP is an excon and for that reason he was denied his right to defend his life.

Who the flock is going to defend you. The narcotized populace will presume that the government is correct.

.

[johnpolitics]

I have asked you a question john and so far no response.

First I am not required to respond to any post.
The point I was making is mentally unstable people who have been committed should not have guns.

[Mom49of4]

So is everyone that goes to Shepherd Pratt has been committed?

[johnpolitics]

Let me rephrase my question.

The government claims that JP is an excon and for that reason he was denied his right to defend his life.

Who the flock is going to defend you. The narcotized populace will presume that the government is correct.

.

If the government determines I am an ex-con I should not own a gun. But I would carry a taser.
FYI- I taught in a prison for 2 years and trust me ex-cons have guns.

[Contumacious]

If the government determines I am an ex-con I should not own a gun. But I would carry a taser.
FYI- I taught in a prison for 2 years and trust me ex-cons have guns.

You totally missed the point.

The power to conduct background checks is subject to misuse with severe consequences.

And BTW, the excon example is bullshiite because the SCOTUS has ruled that excons have the right to prevent the government from forcing them to incriminate themselves !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Woodbuchr]

If the government determines I am an ex-con I should not own a gun. But I would carry a taser.
FYI- I taught in a prison for 2 years and trust me ex-cons have guns.

And they are banned from doing so. So why would a ban on assault weapons stop any criminal who wants one from getting it? What if the Gov't said you couldn't carry a taser? Would you stop?

Also:

johnpolitics
I asked a yes or no question, answer please

johnpolitics
First I am not required to respond to any post.

Even though you said please, if you are not required to answer someone else's question someone else is not required to answer yours

[Abatis]

There is a growing group of County Sheriffs and State Sheriff Associations stating their refusal to enforce or allow federal agents to enforce unconstitutional federal law inside their borders.

This though is huge . . . NY Sheriffs have vocalized their objections to the NY SAFE ACT.

Excerpts:

Assault weapon ban and definition of assault weapons. We believe that the new definition of assault weapons is too broad, and prevents the possession of many weapons that are legitimately used for hunting, target shooting and self defense. Classifying firearms as assault weapons because of one arbitrary feature effectively deprives people the right to possess firearms which have never before been designated as assault weapons. We are convinced that only law abiding gun owners will be affected by these new provisions, while criminals will still have and use whatever weapons they want. . . .

Reduction of ammunition magazine capacity. The new law enacts reductions in the maximum capacity of gun magazines. We believe based on our years of law enforcement experience that this will not reduce gun violence. The new law will unfairly limit the ability of law‐abiding citizens to purchase firearms in New York. It bears repeating that it is our belief that the reduction of magazine capacity will not make New Yorkers or our communities safer. . . .

Method of bill passage. It is the view of the Sheriffs’ Association that anytime government decides it is necessary or desirable to test the boundaries of a constitutional right that it should only be done with caution and with great respect for those constitutional boundaries. Further, it should only be done if the benefit to be gained is so great and certain that it far outweighs the damage done by the constriction of individual liberty. While many of the provisions of the new law have surface appeal, it is far from certain that all, or even many, of them will have any significant effect in reducing gun violence, which is the presumed goal of all of us. Unfortunately the process used in adoption of this act did not permit the mature development of the arguments on either side of the debate, and thus many of the stakeholders in this important issue are left feeling ignored by their government. Even those thrilled with the passage of this legislation should be concerned about the process used to secure its passage, for the next time they may find themselves the victim of that same process. Fortunately, the Governor has shown himself open to working with interested parties to address some of the problems that arose due to the hasty enactment of this law. We will work with the Governor and the Legislature on these issues. . . .

Sheriffs understand their Constitutional obligations and the concerns of constituents Sheriffs and other law enforcement officers are not called upon by this new legislation to go door‐to‐door to confiscate any weapons newly classified as assault weapons, and will not do so.

Sheriffs represent all the people, and we take an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of New York. Sheriffs will continue to enforce all laws of the state and will protect the rights of all citizens, including those rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of New York.

-----------------------

Good for them, good for NY, good for the nation!