Posted on 10/20/2015 10:51:26 AM PDT by Bob434
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has upheld core provisions of the NY Safe Act.
(Excerpt) Read more at wicz.com ...
They showed that banning these things have cut down on crimes? Really? Last I heard there was no evidence that the safe act has had ANY effect one way or the other
OK, not sure what I’m doing wrong, as I’ve had two of these threads pulled now- One said something about title not matching or something- so I copied the whole title this time- hopefully everything is done ok this time- If not, could a moderator please send an FR message to my account telling me what I’m doing wrong?
if you wish to read the full decision you can access it here at the bottom of the article
http://blog.timesunion.com/capitol/archives/241960/federal-court-upholds-safe-act/
“Assault weapon” is a misnomer, one they constantly use to describe a semi-auto rifle with certain looks.
Yes, it would certainly help for mods to inform the thread starter that the thread was pulled, and why it was pulled. As is, they just disappear and it’s almost impossible to find out what & why if you haven’t retained a link to the thread.
The Court says you can have large clips again!! Wonderful victory!!
TX needs to build a wall to keep out the foreigners and their whacked out culture, foolish ideas, and damage they do a rational and civil society. That wall needs to be along the NORTHERN border.
No, the Court says you can _fill_ the clips you are allowed to have.
Mag capacity limit is 10; law said you could only put 7 rounds in.
(Yes, clips v mags. Pedantic.)
So if infringing on your second amendment rights aids in combating crime and equally compellable case can be made that forgoing our other rights aids in the prosecution of crime. Shall we throw those out as well? I do not think the second amendment reads that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed except when combating crime.
[[I do not think the second amendment reads that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed except when combating crime.]]
Exactly, and that’s precisely what I hope the lawyers for the plaintiffs will argue I nthe supreme court
I’m just glad I don’t live in New Jack City. Too bad for the poor, innocent unfortunates who live upstate there!
This God forsaken state sucks.
This is why we need independent judges not party hacks!
10 round clips? Whadda ya mean? Uhm, a friend of mine got 30 round clips when he bought his M4 around the turn of the century. Course he told me he lost them in that boating accident a while back. Now, theoretically, anyone still having them are good to top the clips off again?
Yup- sounds like it’s going to get a lot worse too- Cuomo seems to be really pushing for much stronger gun control laws and really pushing to make it national
The most dangerous three words in Constitutional argument are “compelling state interest.” It is translated as compelling government interest, depending on which party is in power. All laws are transient in that the next legislature can change or modify them. How then is the transient interest of NY Democrats able to trump the Constitutional guarantee of the right to bear arms? If such a legal concept continues to grow then the First Amendment will be eviscerated as well. As is happening now in the matter of free exercise of religion taking a seat in the back to abortion and homosexual rights.
Prince Andrew is running for prez.
nuf said.
-signed disgusted upstater
Nobody is doing anything to change it.
Speaking of gay rights, did you hear about the gays driving side-by-side down the Interstate, at 5 mph BELOW the speed limit? Slomo’s, they call them!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.